Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 145 Filed 10/01/21 Page 1 of 4
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF KANSAS
`
`LOGANTREE LP,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. and
`GARMIN USA, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] SCHEDULE TO COMPLETE EXPERT DISCOVERY
`
`
`Pursuant to this Court’s Order (Dkt. 143), the parties propose the following schedule for the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`completion of expert discovery:
`
`Proposed Schedule:
`
`1.
`
`October 8, 20211 – Deadline for LoganTree to serve its Opening Infringement Report
`
`
`1 Garmin originally proposed September 24, 2021—9 days after Garmin’s source code printouts were
`delivered to LoganTree’s expert—and then October 1, as LoganTree’s deadline, in line with the
`Court’s previously stated inclination to set LoganTree’s deadline about 7-10 days following the
`resolution of the parties’ source code dispute. Dkt. 138, at 29 ((“The court is inclined to reset the
`deadline about 7-10 days thereafter [the source code printout issues are fully resolved].”). LoganTree
`rejected both proposed dates. By the time of this filing, LoganTree had effectively obtained its own
`extension. Regardless, Garmin is prepared to move forward however the Court deems best and
`without further dispute with LoganTree so the case may proceed to summary judgment.
`
`LoganTree wishes to provide the following relevant facts in addition to the foregoing provided by
`Garmin. On August 31, 2021, LoganTree submitted an initial partial request for source code printouts
`of one model family of accused products in an effort to confirm whether Garmin would object to the
`request. Garmin replied that they would need the entirety of source code printout requests in order
`to evaluate the requests, even though the requests were for limited portions of source code. On
`September 3, 2021, LoganTree submitted the entirety of source code printout requests for all 5 model
`families (including 40 accused products). On September 15, 2021, LoganTree’s expert received the
`requested printouts. LoganTree’s expert was then unavailable September 16 through September 20
`because of his child’s wedding. Moreover, LoganTree’s expert’s engineer/employee who was
`involved in the source code review and involved in helping with preparation of the expert report
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF KANSAS
`
`LOGANTREE LP,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. and
`GARMIN USA, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] SCHEDULE TO COMPLETE EXPERT DISCOVERY
`
`
`Pursuant to this Court’s Order (Dkt. 143), the parties propose the following schedule for the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`completion of expert discovery:
`
`Proposed Schedule:
`
`1.
`
`October 8, 20211 – Deadline for LoganTree to serve its Opening Infringement Report
`
`
`1 Garmin originally proposed September 24, 2021—9 days after Garmin’s source code printouts were
`delivered to LoganTree’s expert—and then October 1, as LoganTree’s deadline, in line with the
`Court’s previously stated inclination to set LoganTree’s deadline about 7-10 days following the
`resolution of the parties’ source code dispute. Dkt. 138, at 29 ((“The court is inclined to reset the
`deadline about 7-10 days thereafter [the source code printout issues are fully resolved].”). LoganTree
`rejected both proposed dates. By the time of this filing, LoganTree had effectively obtained its own
`extension. Regardless, Garmin is prepared to move forward however the Court deems best and
`without further dispute with LoganTree so the case may proceed to summary judgment.
`
`LoganTree wishes to provide the following relevant facts in addition to the foregoing provided by
`Garmin. On August 31, 2021, LoganTree submitted an initial partial request for source code printouts
`of one model family of accused products in an effort to confirm whether Garmin would object to the
`request. Garmin replied that they would need the entirety of source code printout requests in order
`to evaluate the requests, even though the requests were for limited portions of source code. On
`September 3, 2021, LoganTree submitted the entirety of source code printout requests for all 5 model
`families (including 40 accused products). On September 15, 2021, LoganTree’s expert received the
`requested printouts. LoganTree’s expert was then unavailable September 16 through September 20
`because of his child’s wedding. Moreover, LoganTree’s expert’s engineer/employee who was
`involved in the source code review and involved in helping with preparation of the expert report
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 145 Filed 10/01/21 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`and Validity Report
`
`October 19, 2021 – Garmin’s deposition of Nik Volkov (LoganTree’s damages
`experts)
`
`October 25, 2021 – Deadline for Garmin to serve its Responsive Damages Report and
`Non-Infringement Report
`
`October 26, 2021 – LoganTree’s deposition of Greg Welch (Garmin’s invalidity
`expert)
`
`October 27, 2021 – Garmin’s deposition of Monty Myers (LoganTree’s infringement
`expert)
`
`October 28, 2021 – LoganTree’s deposition of Chuck Finch (Garmin’s damages
`expert) and Garmin’s deposition of Frank Ferrese (LoganTree’s validity expert)
`
`October 29, 2021 – LoganTree’s deposition of William Michalson (Garmin’s non-
`infringement expert)
`
`
`FOR DEFENDANTS GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. and GARMIN USA, INC.:
`
`DATED: October 1, 2021
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Adam P. Seitz
`Adam P. Seitz, KS Bar #21059
`Megan J. Redmond, KS Bar #21999
`Caroline 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`was/is unavailable from September 17 through October 3 for his own wedding and honeymoon.
`When discussing with Garmin the proposed due dates for the reports, LoganTree advised Garmin of
`the foregoing unavailability of its Expert and his employee.
` 2
`
`
`
`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 145 Filed 10/01/21 Page 3 of 4
`
`FOR PLAINTIFF LOGANTREE LP:
`
`DATED: October 1, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted by:
`
`FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
`
`
`
`/s/ Clayton J. Kaiser
`Clayton J. Kaiser, Kansas Bar #24066
`Foulston Siefkin LLP
`1551 N. Waterfront Pkwy, Suite 100
`Wichita, Kansas 67206
`(316) 291-9539
`(866) 280-2532 FAX
`Email: ckaiser@foulston.com
`
`and
`
`MCCATHERN, PLLC
`
`
`/s/ Christopher M. Barkley
`Arnold Shokouhi, TX (pro hac vice)
`Christopher Barkley (pro hac vice)
`James E. Sherry, TX (pro hac vice)
`McCathern, PLLC
`3710 Rawlins Street, Suite 1600
`Dallas, TX 75219
`(214) 443-4478
`(214) 741-4717 FAX
`Email: arnolds@mccathernlaw.com
`Email: cbarkley@mccathernlaw.com
`Email: jsherry@mccathernlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 145 Filed 10/01/21 Page 4 of 4
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on October 1, 2021,the foregoing document was 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.
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Adam P. Seitz
`Adam P. Seitz
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
