Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 133 Filed 07/14/21 Page 1 of 5
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:17-cv-01217
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LOGANTREE LP,
`
` Plaintiff,
`vs.
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. and
`GARMIN USA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GARMIN’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
`TO PREVENT UNCESSSARY PRINTING COMPLETE BLOCKS OF GARMIN’S
`SOURCE CODE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 133 Filed 07/14/21 Page 2 of 5
`
`Over thirty days ago, on June 8, the Court invited LoganTree to “identify more targeted
`
`lines of code.” Dkt. 130-3, at 19. To date, LoganTree and its expert have been unable, or unwilling,
`
`to do so, despite a 30(b)(6) deposition of Garmin’s code witness, a lengthy review of the code, and
`
`the ability to take notes during the review. Instead, nearly all of LoganTree’s brief revolves around
`
`its claim that it cannot move forward without more code because the code files are allegedly
`
`“removed from their context.” Opp’n, at 5. But this is precisely the problem. LoganTree fails to
`
`provide any detail other than vague generalities about why it needs 2600 pages of code.
`
`
`
`LoganTree’s refusal to identify the allegedly missing code is not surprising. This case
`
`“don’t seem to implicate a lot of source code.” Dkt. 130-3, at 16. Nor could it. LoganTree’s request
`
`for source code only relates to the “first time stamp information” limitation. The time stamp is
`
`only a small component and, as LoganTree tacitly concedes, the vast majority of the asserted
`
`claims have nothing to do with source code. For example, the “movement sensor,” “power source,”
`
`“user input,” “real-time clock,” and “output indicator,” and many parts of the “microprocessor”
`
`limitation do not implicate source code. See Dkt. 1-3, ‘576 Patent Re-Exam Certificate, Claim 1.
`
`The minor aspect the code plays in this case does not justify LoganTree’s request.1
`
`This is particularly true where Garmin already printed the precise source code responsible
`
`for the step-counting and time stamp functionality. Critically, there is no dispute that LoganTree
`
`has in its possession the correct code describing this functionality. Nowhere does LoganTree
`
`identify with particularly (e.g., by name and line number) any missing modules or lines of code
`
`for the step-counting and time stamp functionality. Instead, LoganTree suggests the code is like a
`
`
`1 LoganTree has been provided voluminous discovery to prepare its (as of yet unserved) expert
`report—278,000+ pages of documents, 46 hours of review for all source code for the accused
`products, and depositions of technical witnesses. LoganTree has more than enough information
`upon which to prepare an expert report.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 133 Filed 07/14/21 Page 3 of 5
`
`“building made out of Legos,” yet it cannot identify the specific blocks that it claims are missing,
`
`or provide specifics as to why those blocks are necessary to supplement the code it already has.
`
`LoganTree argues the printed code “make[s] it close to impossible to match the exact
`
`source code to the specific accused product or module relating to that product.” Opp’n, at 5. This
`
`argument is belied by the printed code itself. For example, Exhibit D to Garmin’s original motion
`
`includes two sample pages of the source code provided to LoganTree. Dkt. 130-4, Ex. D (filed
`
`under seal). In these excerpts, both the module and the product can be identified in the header files.
`
`This, combined with the 46-hour code review and whatever notes LoganTree’s expert took during
`
`this process should be more than enough. Nonetheless, to avoid a dispute on this issue, Garmin
`
`has provided LoganTree a “cheat sheet” linking the source code to each Accused Product. Ex. H.
`
`Perhaps the biggest problem with LoganTree’s “context” argument is LoganTree’s own
`
`failure to conduct discovery on the code. Glaringly absent from LoganTree’s brief is any
`
`explanation for its failure to ask Garmin’s 30(b)(6) source code witness a single question about
`
`the code, its “context,” or how it fits together “like a building made out of Legos.” In light of this
`
`failure, it is clear LoganTree is now seeking to continue its code review in an improper manner.
`
`Finally, LoganTree suggests that Garmin’s concerns about the security of its printed source
`
`code are unfounded and illusory. Yet LoganTree’s own brief shows that Garmin’s concerns are
`
`well founded. Case in point, Garmin produced 207 pages of printed code to LoganTree’s expert.
`
`Ex. I, Declaration of Callie Pendergrass. LoganTree’s brief, however, notes in multiple instances
`
`that it only has 100 pages of printouts in its possession. Opp’n, at 1 and 7. Counsel is addressing
`
`this discrepancy with LoganTree (who has been unable to confirm whether code is missing), but
`
`Garmin should not be subject to the risk of an inadvertent disclosure, especially when LoganTree
`
`has more than enough technical information and printed code upon which to prepare its report.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 133 Filed 07/14/21 Page 4 of 5
`
`Dated: July 14, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`
`/s/ Megan J. Redmond
`Megan J. Redmond, KS Bar #21999
`Adam P. Seitz, KS Bar #21059
`Carrie A Bader, KS Bar #24436
`Clifford T. Brazen, KS Bar #27408
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`7015 College Blvd., Suite 700
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`Facsimile: (913) 777-5601
`adam.seitz@eriseip.com
`megan.redmond@eriseip.com
`carrie.bader@eriseip.com
`cliff.brazen@eriseip.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Garmin
`International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 133 Filed 07/14/21 Page 5 of 5
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that, on July 14th, 2021, the foregoing document filed with the Clerk of the
`Court using CM/ECF and that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic
`service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system accordingly.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Megan J. Redmond
` Megan J. Redmond
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`