1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

SENSUS USA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CERTIFIED MEASUREMENT LLC,

Defendant.



Civil Action No.




COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff, Sensus USA, Inc. (“Sensus”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby
brings this action for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement against Defendant, Certified
Measurement LLC (“CML”), and states as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This action seeks the following relief:
a. A declaratory judgment and ancillary relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
2202 resolving an existing case and controversy. To wit, that none of Sensus’ products or
services infringe any of the Defendant, CML’s patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 5,828,751
(“the ‘751 Patent”), 6,282,648 (“the ‘648 Patent”), 6,289,453 (“the ‘453 Patent”), and 8,549,310
(“the ‘310 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”); and
b. Monetary relief, including attorneys’ fees and costs.
THE PARTIES
2. Plaintiff, Sensus, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
Delaware with a principal place of business at 8601 Six Forks Road, Suite 700, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27601.
2

3. Defendant, CML, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
Delaware with a principal place of business at 2 High Ridge Park, Stamford, Connecticut 06905.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This action is brought pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
U.S.C. §2201, et seq. Defendant sent Sensus and its customers infringement notification letters
alleging that each respectively infringed the Patents-in-Suit by making, using, selling or offering
for sale, Sensus’ products, giving rise to an actual case or controversy under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201
and 2202.
5. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1338, 2201 and 2202.
7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over CML because CML maintains its
principal place of business in this District, CML resides in this District, and because CML issued
the infringement notification letters from this District.
8. Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 at least because CML’s
principal place of business is located within this District, and therefore CML resides in this
District.
9. Sensus is entitled to declaratory relief because Sensus and its customers have not
infringed any valid, enforceable claim of the Patents-in-Suit by making, using, selling or offering
for sale, Sensus’ Products, and because Sensus wishes to continue selling and commercializing
its products and processes free from allegations of infringement by CML.
3

BACKGROUND FACTS
10. Sensus is a leading clean technology solutions company offering smart meters,
communication systems, software, and services for the water, gas, and electric industries
(collectively, the “Sensus Product Line”), including the Sensus FlexNet iCon smart meters.
11. The Southern Company (“Southern”), Wisconsin Power and Light Company
(“WP&L”), Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. (“HECO”), NV Energy, Inc. (“NVE”), and
Portland General Electric Company (“PGEC”, collectively the “Sensus Customers”) are utility
companies that purchase and use products from the Sensus Product Line, including Sensus
FlexNet iCon smart meters.
12. On October 27, 1998, the USPTO issued the ‘751 Patent, titled “Method and
Apparatus for Secure Measurement Certification.”
13. On August 28, 2001, the USPTO issued the ‘648 Patent, titled “Method and
Apparatus for Secure Measurement Certification.”
14. On September 11, 2001, the USPTO issued the ‘453 Patent, titled “Method and
Apparatus for Secure Measurement Certification.”
15. On October 1, 2013, the USPTO issued the ‘310 Patent, titled “Method and
Apparatus for Secure Measurement Certification.”
16. On June 5, 2014, CML sent Sensus a letter notifying Sensus that it’s “FlexNet
advanced metering infrastructure infringes one or more claims of each of the [Patents-in-Suit].”
See June 5, 2014 CML Letter to Sensus attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
17. In its June 5, 2014 Letter, CML claims that it is the owner of the Patents-in-Suit
and further contends that 1) it is litigating the Patents-in-Suit in the Eastern District of Texas; and
4

2) may bring a lawsuit against Sensus, unless “a suitable licensing arrangement can be negotiated
soon[.]”
18. On June 4, 2014, CML sent a similar letter to Southern, notifying Southern of its
alleged infringement and similarly threatening to bring a lawsuit against Southern unless
Southern agreed to a license for the Patents-in-Suit. A copy of CML’s letter to Southern is
attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
19. On June 4, 2014, CML sent a similar letter to WP&L, notifying WP&L of its
alleged infringement and similarly threatening to bring a lawsuit against WP&L unless WP&L
agreed to a license for the Patents-in-Suit. A copy of CML’s letter to WP&L is attached hereto
as Exhibit 3.
20. On June 4, 2014, CML sent a similar letter to HECO, notifying HECO of its
alleged infringement and similarly threatening to bring a lawsuit against HECO unless HECO
agreed to a license for the Patents-in-Suit. A copy of CML’s letter to HECO is attached hereto
as Exhibit 4.
21. On June 4, 2014, CML sent a similar letter to NVE, notifying NVE of its alleged
infringement and similarly threatening to bring a lawsuit against NVE unless NVE agreed to a
license for the Patents-in-Suit. A copy of CML’s letter to NVE is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
22. On June 4, 2014, CML sent a similar letter to PGEC, notifying PGEC of its
alleged infringement and similarly threatening to bring a lawsuit against PGEC unless PGEC
agreed to a license for the Patents-in-Suit. A copy of CML’s letter to PGEC is attached hereto as
Exhibit 6.
23. On June 18, 2014, Southern responded to CML by letter, requesting additional
information regarding CML’s allegations of infringement.
5

24. On July 9, 2014, in response to Southern’s response, CML identified the
following claims as “representative independent claims [CML] believe[s] are infringed by”
Sensus FlexNet iCon meter, which is sold by Sensus and used by each of the Sensus Customers:
 The ‘751 Patent: claims 1, 57, 102, 109, 118, 124, 125, 167;
 The ‘648 Patent: claims 1, 141, 142, 143;
 The ‘453 Patent: claim 43; and
 The ‘310 Patent: claim 20.
July 9, 2014 Letter from CML to Southern, attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
25. Accordingly, CML alleges that Sensus’, and its customers’, commercialization of
certain products in the Sensus Product Line, including the Sensus FlexNet iCon meters, directly
or indirectly infringe one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit.
26. Sensus alleges that these products do not infringe, either alone, or with any other
entity, directly or indirectly, any claims of the Patent-in-Suit.
27. Any condition precedent necessary to bring the instant action has been performed,
waived or excused.
COUNT I
(DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT)
28. Sensus repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-27 of this Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
29. Sensus does not directly infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the Patents-
in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), either alone or with any other entity, including the Sensus
6

Customers, at least because the Sensus Product Line lack a certified/certifiable measurement as
required by each of the Asserted Claims.
30. Sensus does not induce others, including the Sensus Customers, to infringe any
valid and enforceable claim of the Patents-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), either alone or with
any other entity, at least because the Sensus Product Line lack a certified/certifiable
measurement as required by each of the Asserted Claims.
31. Sensus does not contributorily infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the
Patents-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), either alone or with any other entity, including the
Sensus Customers, at least because the Sensus Product Line lack a certified/certifiable
measurement as required by each of the Asserted Claims.
32. An actual, live and justiciable controversy exists between Sensus and CML as to
whether any of the products in Sensus’ Product Line infringe the Patents-in-Suit.
33. Accordingly, Sensus is entitled to a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of
the claims of the Patents-in-Suit and to all just and proper relief.
COUNT II
(DECLARATION OF NON-INTERFERENCE WITH PATENT RIGHTS)
34. Sensus repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-27 of this Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
35. An actual, live and justiciable controversy exists concerning Sensus’ freedom to
operate free of infringement claims by CML.
36. As a result Sensus seeks, and is entitled to, a judgment that Sensus and the Sensus
Customers are not infringing any valid and enforceable claim of any patents owned or controlled
by CML, individually or collectively.
7

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Sensus prays for the following relief:
A. That judgment be entered in favor of Sensus and against CML on each count of
the Complaint;
B. That judgment be entered declaring that neither Sensus, nor any accused product
in the Sensus Product Line, nor the Sensus Customers’ use of any product in the Sensus Product
Line, have infringed any claims in the Patents-in-Suit;
C. That judgment be entered declaring that CML is prohibited from alleging
infringement of any claims of the Patents-in-Suit against Sensus or the Sensus Customers;
D. That judgment be entered declaring that CML is precluded from obtaining
injunctive relief, money damages, costs, and/or attorneys’ fees against Sensus or the Sensus
Customers for the alleged infringement of the claims of the Patents-in-Suit;
E. That judgment be entered permanently enjoining CML, their officers, agents,
servants, employees and attorneys, and all others acting for, on behalf of, or in active concert or
participation with any of them, from stating, implying or suggesting that Sensus, the Sensus
Customers, or any products in the Sensus Products Line infringe the claims of the Patents-in-
Suit;
F. That the Court declare that Sensus and the Sensus Customers are free to operate
without a cloud of infringement claims by CML; and
G. That judgment be entered declaring that this case is exceptional in favor of Sensus
under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and that Sensus be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses;
H. That Sensus be awarded its costs in this action; and
8

I. That Sensus be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

July 25, 2014 /s/ Steven B. Simonis
Date Gene S. Winter, ct05137
Steven B. Simonis, ct22777
Jonathan A. Winter, ct29316
ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS LLC
986 Bedford Street
Stamford, Connecticut 06905-5619
Telephone: (203) 324-6155
Facsimile: (203) 327-1096
litigation@ssjr.com
gwinter@ssjr.com
ssimonis@ssjr.com
jwinter@ssjr.com

Of Counsel:
James A. Gale, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Feldman, Esq.
Rafael Perez-Pineiro, Esq.
Richard Guerra, Esq.
Javier Sobrado, Esq.
Feldman Gale, P.A.
One Biscayne Tower, 30
th
Floor
2 South Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone (305) 397-5001
Facsimile: (305) 358-3309
jgale@FeldmanGale.com
jsobrado@FeldmanGale.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff SensusUSA, Inc.


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful