Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-KGS Document 22 Filed 07/18/18 Page 1 of 10
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
`
`
`LOGANTREE LP,
`
`
`
`
` vs.
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. and
`GARMIN USA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
` Case No. 17-1217-EFM-KGS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`Plaintiff LoganTree LP has sued Defendants Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin
`
`
`
`U.S.A., Inc. (collectively “Garmin”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 (“the
`
`‘576 Patent”), as reexamined. Garmin moves to dismiss LoganTree’s infringement claim pursuant
`
`to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and asks the Court for a hearing on its motion. Because LoganTree
`
`pled its infringement claim in sufficient detail, the Court denies Garmin’s Motion to Dismiss as
`
`well as its motion for a hearing.
`
`I.
`
`Factual and Procedural Background
`
`
`
`LoganTree is a partnership organized under Nevada law. LoganTree’s sole general partner
`
`is Gulfstream Ventures, LLC, which is owned and managed by Theodore and Anne Brann.
`
`Theodore Brann is the named inventor of the ‘576 Patent, which was issued by the United States
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-KGS Document 22 Filed 07/18/18 Page 2 of 10
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) on May 9, 2000. Brann assigned all right, title and interest
`
`in the ‘576 Patent to LoganTree.
`
`
`
`The ‘576 Patent generally relates to a device worn by an individual that measures, analyzes,
`
`and records data about the individual’s body movements using an accelerometer, programmable
`
`microprocessor, internal clock, and memory. One of the preferred embodiments for the device
`
`consists of a “self-contained movement measuring device” that can be attached to the individual
`
`in a “variety of positions based on the specific movement being observed” and the “particular
`
`application in which the device is used.” The ‘576 Patent notes that the invention could be useful
`
`“for any number of sports, including football, baseball, basketball, or tennis” due to the variety of
`
`ways that the microprocessor can be programmed to operate.
`
`
`
`On March 17, 2015, following a reexamination requested by LoganTree, the PTO issued a
`
`reexamination certificate for the ‘576 Patent, bearing U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 C1 (the
`
`“reexamined ‘576 Patent”). The reexamined ‘576 Patent contains 185 claims. Claims 1, 13, and
`
`20 are independent claims, and the remaining 182 claims are dependent on Claims 1, 13, or 20.
`
`Claim 1 is a “device” claim that sets forth the elements of the patented device. This claim provides
`
` a
`
` a
`
`for:
`
`
`
`A portable, self-contained device for monitoring movement of body parts during
`physical activity, said device comprising:
`
` a
`
` movement sensor capable of measuring data associated with unrestrained
`movement in any direction and generating signals indicative of said movement;
`
` power source;
`
` microprocessor connected to said movement sensor and to said power source, said
`microprocessor capable of receiving, interpreting, storing, and responding to said
`movement data based on user-defined operational parameters, detecting a first user-
`defined event based on the movement data and at least one of the user-defined
`operational parameters regarding the movement data, and storing first event
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-KGS Document 22 Filed 07/18/18 Page 3 of 10
`
`information related to the selected first user-defined event along with the first time
`stamp information reflecting a time at which the movement data causing the first
`user-defined event occurred;
`
`at least one user input connected to said microprocessor for controlling the
`operation of said device;
`
` a
`
` real-time clock connected to said microprocessor;
`
`
`memory for storing said movement data; and
`
`an output indicator connected to said microprocessor for signaling the occurrence
`of user-defined events;
`
`wherein said movement sensor measure the angle and velocity of said movement.
`
`Claim 13 defines the patented “system” to comprise the claim 1 device when connected via a
`
`“download service” to “a computer running a program capable of interpreting” the data gathered
`
`by the claim 1 device. And, claim 20 is a method claim, setting forth “[a] method to monitor
`
`physical movement of a body part.”
`
`
`
`LoganTree alleges that Garmin is making, selling, and offering to sell to customers within
`
`the United States accelerometer-based activity monitoring devices that infringe the reexamined
`
`‘576 Patent. Specifically, LoganTree alleges that the following models of wearable accelerometer-
`
`based activity trackers infringe its patent: vivofit model family, vivosmart model family,
`
`vivoactive model family, vivomove model family, Fenix model family, Forerunner model family,
`
`Epix model family, Tactix model family, Quatix model family, D2 model family, Approach model
`
`family, Foretrex model family, TruSwing model family, and the Swim model family (collectively,
`
`the “Accused Products”).
`
`
`
`LoganTree initially filed suit in the Western District of Texas, but that suit was dismissed
`
`without prejudice on venue grounds. On August 23, 2017, LoganTree filed suit in this Court
`
`alleging infringement of each of the 185 claims in the reexamined ‘576 Patent. LoganTree’s
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-KGS Document 22 Filed 07/18/18 Page 4 of 10
`
`Complaint contains a description of the ’576 Patent, sets forth the three independent claims of the
`
`‘576 Patent, and attaches a chart detailing how three of Garmin’s Accused Products allegedly
`
`incorporate the elements of claim 1 of the reexamined ‘576 Patent. LoganTree seeks an award of
`
`damages to compensate it for Garmin’s alleged infringement, a permanent injunction prohibiting
`
`Garmin from infringing the reexamined ‘576 Patent, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Garmin has filed
`
`a Motion to Dismiss LoganTree’s Complaint for failure to state a claim (Doc. 10) and a Motion
`
`for Hearing on its Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19). LoganTree opposes Garmin’s Motion to Dismiss,
`
`but in the alternative, moves to amend its Complaint (Doc. 15).
`
`II.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`
`
`Before December of 2015, a plaintiff only needed to comply with Form 18 to sufficiently
`
`plead a claim of direct patent infringement. Form 18 sets forth fairly simple pleading elements,
`
`only requiring:
`
`(1) an allegation of jurisdiction; (2) a statement that the plaintiff owns the patent;
`(3) a statement that defendant has been infringing the patent by “making, selling,
`and using [the device] embodying the patent”; (4) a statement that the plaintiff has
`given the defendant notice of its infringement; and (5) a demand for an injunction
`and damages.1
`
`But in December of 2015, Form 18 was eliminated from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2
`
`Since then, the Federal Circuit has applied the Twombly and Iqbal pleading standards to claims for
`
`direct patent infringement.3 Under these standards, to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint
`
`
`1 Lyda v. CBS Corp., 838 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).
`
`2 See Gracenote, Inc. v. Sorenson Media, Inc., 2017 WL 2116173, at *2 (D. Utah 2017) (citation omitted).
`
`3 Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc., 869 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see Artrip v. Ball Corp.,
`2018 WL 2329742, at *5 n.4 (Fed Cir. 2018) (stating that the plausibility standard applies to direct infringement
`claims); Disc Disease Solutions, Inc. v. VGH Solutions, Inc., 888 F.3d 1256, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that a
`complaint met the requirements of Iqbal/Twombly).
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-KGS Document 22 Filed 07/18/18 Page 5 of 10
`
`must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, “to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible
`
`on its face.’ ”4 A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads facts sufficient for the court to
`
`reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct.5 “Merely pleading facts
`
`that are consistent with liability or stating legal conclusions is not sufficient.”6
`
`III. Analysis
`
`
`
`Garmin challenges the sufficiency of the factual support in LoganTree’s Complaint.
`
`Garmin argues that for LoganTree to establish a plausible basis for infringement, it must show
`
`how the accused products infringe each limitation of at least one claim of the asserted patent.
`
`According to Garmin, if a single limitation is missing from the Complaint, then LoganTree has not
`
`met its burden under Iqbal/Twombly.
`
`
`
`The Court, however, is not persuaded that LoganTree must meet such a stringent standard
`
`to state a claim for direct infringement. Garmin’s argument is based on a non-binding opinion
`
`from the Northern District of Illinois.7 Furthermore, two recent Federal Circuit decisions indicate
`
`that such detailed pleading is not necessary for a patent infringement claim to survive a Rule
`
`12(b)(6) motion. In Disc Disease Solutions, Inc. v. VGH Solutions, Inc., the defendant sought to
`
`dismiss the plaintiff’s claim for direct infringement on the basis that it did not meet the
`
`Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard.8 The plaintiff in that case filed its complaint one day before
`
`
`4 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
`
`5 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
`
`6 Artrip, 2018 WL 2329742, at *5 (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
`
`7 Atlas IP, LLC v. Exelon Corp., 189 F. Supp. 3d 768 (N.D. Ill. 2016).
`
`8 888 F.3d at 1258-59.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-KGS Document 22 Filed 07/18/18 Page 6 of 10
`
`Form 18 was abrogated.9 The complaint specifically identified the defendant’s products and
`
`generally alleged that the products met each element of at least one claim of the plaintiff’s patent.10
`
`The plaintiff also attached the asserted patent and photographs of the accused products to the
`
`complaint.11 On appeal to the Federal Circuit, the plaintiff argued that the district court erred in
`
`not applying the standard in Form 18 because Form 18 was in effect on the date the complaint was
`
`filed.12
`
`
`
`The Federal Circuit concluded that the plaintiff sufficiently pled its claims under
`
`Iqbal/Twombly, and therefore it was not necessary to determine whether Form 18 or the
`
`Iqbal/Twombly standard applied.13 Reiterating the Supreme Court’s ruling in those cases, the
`
`Federal Circuit stated that the “plausibility standard is met when ‘the plaintiff pleads factual
`
`content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
`
`misconduct alleged.’ ”14 According to the court, the plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient because
`
`the case involved simple technology, the asserted patents consisted of only four independent
`
`claims, and the complaint identified the three accused products by name and picture.15
`
`
`9 Id. at 1258.
`
`10 Id.
`
`11 Id.
`
`12 Id. at 1259.
`
`13 Id. n.3.
`
`14 Id. at 1260 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
`
`15 Id.
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-KGS Document 22 Filed 07/18/18 Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`The Federal Circuit applied the same standard in a subsequent case—Artrip v. Ball Corp.16
`
`At issue in that case was the plaintiff’s third amended complaint, which described the parties and
`
`the patents at issue and alleged that the defendant infringed the patents by using one or more
`
`machines at a certain plant operated by the defendant.17 The third amended complaint did not
`
`otherwise identify the accused machines, but it generally alleged that the machines included each
`
`element of each patent’s single independent claim.18 The complaint also identified additional
`
`plants operated by the defendant and alleged on information and belief that machines in each of
`
`those plants infringed one or more of the asserted patents.19 Applying the Iqbal/Twombly standard,
`
`the Federal Circuit concluded that the allegations were insufficient to state a plausible claim for
`
`direct infringement.20 The court noted that the plaintiff’s attorney had access to the defendant’s
`
`plant and photographed the defendant’s equipment, but the complaint did not identify any of the
`
`particular machines that infringed the patents other than by broad functional language.21 And
`
`compared to the plaintiff in Disc Disease, the plaintiff did not fairly identify the accused
`
`machines.22
`
`
`
`Notably, in Disc Disease and Artrip, the Federal Circuit did not analyze whether the
`
`plaintiff alleged that the accused product incorporated every limitation of the claims of the patents
`
`
`16 2018 WL 2329742.
`
`17 Id. at *2.
`
`18 Id.
`
`19 Id.
`
`20 Id. at *5.
`
`21 Id.
`
`22 Id.
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-KGS Document 22 Filed 07/18/18 Page 8 of 10
`
`at issue. Instead, the Federal Circuit stated that “specific facts are not necessary; the statement
`
`need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the ground upon which it
`
`rests.’ ”23 In light of the Federal Circuit’s analysis, this Court declines to endorse the heightened
`
`pleading requirement that Garmin seeks to impose on LoganTree. Thus, a plausible claim for
`
`direct infringement need not show how the accused product infringes each limitation of one claim
`
`of the patent at issue.
`
`
`
`Garmin argues that even considering the Federal Circuit’s analysis in Disc Disease,
`
`LoganTree’s Complaint falls short of meeting the plausibility standard. Garmin argues that Disc
`
`Disease is distinguishable from this case because Disc Disease involved four independent claims
`
`directed to a simple technology while this case involves 185 patent claims involving a complex
`
`technology and numerous accused products. The Court agrees that this case is far more complex
`
`than Disc Disease in terms of the technology, number of claims, and number of Accused Products.
`
`But, this does not mean that LoganTree’s Complaint is deficient. Rather, LoganTree’s Complaint
`
`contains sufficient factual matter to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.
`
`
`
`The Complaint first contains a detailed description of the invention set forth in the ‘576
`
`Patent and attaches the ‘576 Patent and the ‘576 Reexamination Certificate. The Complaint also
`
`recites verbatim the elements of claim 1 of the reexamined ‘576 Patent. Next, the Complaint
`
`provides an element-by-element explaination of how Garmin’s Accused Products infringe claim 1
`
`of the reexamined ‘576 Patent. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that (1) the “movement sensor”
`
`used in the Accused Products includes “an accelerometer”; (2) the “power source” used in the
`
`Accused Products includes a “rechargeable internal battery”; (3) the Accused Products contain a
`
`
`23 Disc Disease, 888 F.3d at 1260 (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)).
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-KGS Document 22 Filed 07/18/18 Page 9 of 10
`
`microprocessor capable of receiving, interpreting, storing, and responding to movement data
`
`detected by the accelerometer based on “user-defined” events that can be programmed into the
`
`Accused Products, such as “a goal of 10,000 steps, the user’s height, the angle or speed of the
`
`wearer’s golf swing, distance traveled, calories burned, etc.”; (4) the user inputs in the Accused
`
`Products include “buttons” and “touch screen”; (5) the Accused Products contain a real-time clock
`
`and memory “for storing movement data”; and (6) the output indicators of the Accused Products
`
`include “screens, LED readouts, [or] colored lights.” These allegations are not conclusory
`
`statements that simply repeat the language of the claims.
`
`
`
`LoganTree provided further factual support for its direct infringement claim by attaching
`
`a claim chart to the Complaint. The claim chart allegedly shows how three of the Accused Products
`
`(the Forerunner 35, the vivoactive HR, and the fenix 5 Series) contain each element of claim 1 of
`
`the reexamined ‘576 patent. LoganTree refers to information taken from Garmin’s website as the
`
`source of information for the chart.
`
`
`
`The Complaint also explains how Garmin’s products allegedly infringe the two other
`
`independent claims of the reexamined ‘576 Patent, although LoganTree has not attached a claim
`
`chart for these claims, and how one of Garmin’s products embodies a specific application of the
`
`invention described in the ‘576 Patent. Specifically, in paragraph 36 of the patent, LoganTree
`
`describes one of the applications of the invention from the ‘576 Patent and then quotes language
`
`from Garmin’s website describing its TruSwing device. LoganTree alleges that the TruSwing
`
`device is an application of its invention that is specifically described in the ‘576 Patent.
`
`
`
`Garmin complains that LoganTree’s Complaint fails to give it “even scant notice” of what
`
`the issues are in this case. But Garmin focuses exclusively on the fact that LoganTree has not
`
`alleged how each Accused Product incorporates every limitation of the reexamined ‘576 Patent’s
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-KGS Document 22 Filed 07/18/18 Page 10 of 10
`
`claims.24 LoganTree is not required to prove its case at this stage in the litigation.25 It must only
`
`“plead factual content that allows the court draw the reasonable inference that [Garmin] is liable
`
`for the misconduct alleged.”26 LoganTree has accomplished this task. Therefore, Garmin’s
`
`Motion to Dismiss is denied.
`
`Garmin has also moved the Court for a hearing regarding its Motion to Dismiss to provide
`
`further insight or respond to any technical issues raised in its motion. A hearing, however, is not
`
`necessary to decide Garmin’s motion. Therefore, Garmin’s request for oral argument is denied.
`
`
`
`IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Garmin’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
`
`Claim (Doc. 10) is DENIED.
`
`
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for leave to Amend Complaint
`
`(Doc. 15) is DENIED AS MOOT.
`
`
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Garmin’s Motion for Hearing re Motion to Dismiss
`
`for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 19) is DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated this 18th day of July, 2018.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ERIC F. MELGREN
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`24 In support of its argument, Garmin relies on Joao Control & Monitoring Sys., LLC v. Protect America,
`Inc., 2015 WL 3513151 (W.D. Tex. 2015), but this case is not persuasive. In Protect America, the plaintiff’s complaint
`asserted, without further specification, that the defendant’s products infringed “one or more” of the over 900 claims
`covered in the six patents in suit. Id. at *4. There are not nearly as many patents or claims at issue in this case.
`Moreover, LoganTree’s Complaint contains more than just a simple, general allegation that Garmin’s Accused
`Products infringe “one or more” of the reexamined ‘576 Patent’s claims.
`
`25 See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
`
`26 Id.
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`