Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 59 Filed 11/25/19 Page 1 of 9
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
`
`
`
`
`
` Case: 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-KGS
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`
`
`LOGANTREE LP
`
`
`
`
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., and
`GARMIN USA, INC.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`Defendants Garmin International, Inc., and Garmin USA, Inc. (“Garmin”), answers the
`
`Plaintiff’s Original Complaint (“Complaint”) by Plaintiff LoganTree LP (“LoganTree”) as
`
`follows:
`
`1.
`
`Garmin admits that the Complaint purports to be an action for patent infringement
`
`arising under 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq. However, Garmin denies that LoganTree’s Complaint sets
`
`forth valid or meritorious claims for patent infringement.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Garmin is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 2 and, therefore denies the same.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Garmin Ltd. was dismissed on November 21, 2017 [Dkt. No. 16] and is no longer
`
`a party to this action; therefore, no response is necessary.
`
`6.
`
`Admitted.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
`
`
`
`
`
` Case: 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-KGS
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`
`
`LOGANTREE LP
`
`
`
`
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., and
`GARMIN USA, INC.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`Defendants Garmin International, Inc., and Garmin USA, Inc. (“Garmin”), answers the
`
`Plaintiff’s Original Complaint (“Complaint”) by Plaintiff LoganTree LP (“LoganTree”) as
`
`follows:
`
`1.
`
`Garmin admits that the Complaint purports to be an action for patent infringement
`
`arising under 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq. However, Garmin denies that LoganTree’s Complaint sets
`
`forth valid or meritorious claims for patent infringement.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Garmin is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 2 and, therefore denies the same.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Garmin Ltd. was dismissed on November 21, 2017 [Dkt. No. 16] and is no longer
`
`a party to this action; therefore, no response is necessary.
`
`6.
`
`Admitted.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 59 Filed 11/25/19 Page 2 of 9
`
`7.
`
`Garmin admits that it sells and offers to sell products and services throughout the
`
`United States, including in this judicial district. Garmin denies the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 7.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`Garmin admits that LoganTree’s Complaint purports to be an action for patent
`
`infringement arising under Title 35 of the United States Code. Garmin further admits that this
`
`Court has subject matter jurisdiction over meritorious contentions for patent infringement
`
`generally under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). However, Garmin denies that LoganTree’s
`
`Complaint sets forth a valid or meritorious claim for patent infringement.
`
`9.
`
`Garmin admits that it resides in this State and judicial district and, as such, this
`
`Court has personal jurisdiction over Garmin. Garmin denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`Garmin admits that that it advertises, offers to sell, and sells products and/or
`
`services in the United States, State of Kansas, and District of Kansas. Garmin admits that it solicits
`
`customers in the State of Kansas and the District of Kansas. Garmin admits it has customers who
`
`are residents of the State of Kansas and District of Kansas. Garmin admits that it derives revenue
`
`from goods and services provided to individuals in the State and District of Kansas. Garmin denies
`
`any remaining allegations in Paragraph 10.
`
`11.
`
`Garmin admits that Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. are both
`
`incorporated in the State of Kansas. Garmin Ltd. was dismissed on November 21, 2017 [Dkt. No.
`
`16] and is no longer a party to this action; therefore, no response is necessary on behalf of Garmin
`
`Ltd. Garmin admits that Garmin has transacted business in the District of Kansas. Garmin denies
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 59 Filed 11/25/19 Page 3 of 9
`
`the remaining allegations of Paragraph 11. Garmin does not agree with LoganTree’s request for
`
`designation of trial in Wichita and intends to file a motion for intra-district transfer.
`
`THE PATENT-IN-SUIT
`
`12.
`
`Garmin admits that Exhibit A purports to be a copy of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`(“the ’576 Patent”). Garmin is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 12 and, therefore denies the same.
`
`13.
`
`Garmin admits that Exhibit B purports to be a copy of U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576
`
`C1 (“the ’576 Reexamination Certificate”). Garmin is without knowledge or information sufficient
`
`to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 13 and, therefore
`
`denies the same.
`
`14.
`
`Garmin is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 14 and, therefore denies the same.
`
`15.
`
`Garmin is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 15 and, therefore denies the same.
`
`MR. BRANN’S INVENTION
`
`16.
`
`Garmin is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 16 and, therefore denies the same.
`
`17.
`
`Garmin is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 17 and, therefore denies the same.
`
`18.
`
`Garmin is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 18 and, therefore denies the same.
`
`19.
`
`Garmin is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 19 and, therefore denies the same.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 59 Filed 11/25/19 Page 4 of 9
`
`20.
`
`Garmin is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 20 and, therefore denies the same.
`
`DIFFERENT WAYS TO PROGRAM MR. BRANN’S INVENTION
`
`21.
`
`Garmin is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 21 and, therefore denies the same.
`
`22.
`
`Garmin is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 22 and, therefore denies the same.
`
`23.
`
`Garmin is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 23 and, therefore denies the same.
`
`THE REEXAMINATION
`
`24.
`
`Garmin is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 24 and, therefore denies the same.
`
`25.
`
`Garmin admits that Paragraph 25 appears to recite the text of Claim 1 of the ’576
`
`Reexamination Certificate. Garmin is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of any remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 25 and, therefore denies the
`
`same.
`
`26.
`
`Garmin is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 26 and, therefore denies the same.
`
`27.
`
`Garmin is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 27 and, therefore denies the same.
`
`28.
`
`Garmin responds that Paragraph 28 appears to recite the text of Claim 13 of the
`
`’576 Reexamination Certificate. Garmin is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 59 Filed 11/25/19 Page 5 of 9
`
`belief as to the truth of any remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 28 and, therefore denies
`
`the same.
`
`29.
`
`Garmin is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 29 and, therefore denies the same.
`
`30.
`
`Garmin admits that Paragraph 30 appears to recite the text of Claim 20 of the ’576
`
`Reexamination Certificate. Garmin is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of any remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 30 and, therefore denies the
`
`same.
`
`COUNT ONE: INFRINGEMENT OF THE REEXAMINED ’576 PATENT
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`Garmin incorporates by reference its responses to the paragraphs above.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`RESPONSE TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 59 Filed 11/25/19 Page 6 of 9
`
`
`
`Garmin denies that LoganTree is entitled to any relief in connection with the allegations of
`
`LoganTree’s Complaint, including, without limitation, the relief requested in paragraphs (a)
`
`through (f) of LoganTree’s Prayer for Relief.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Garmin admits that LoganTree demands a trial by jury for all issues triable.
`
`DESIGNATION OF TRIAL
`
`
`
`Garmin does not agree with LoganTree’s request for designation of trial in Wichita and
`
`intends to file a motion for intra-district transfer.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`
`
`Garmin asserts the following additional defenses to the Complaint. In doing so, Garmin
`
`does not assume any burden of proof on any issue that is LoganTree’s burden as a matter of law.
`
`Garmin reserves the right to amend this Answer to add additional defenses as additional facts
`
`become known throughout the course of discovery in this action.
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`(Invalidity)
`
`One or more claims of the ’576 Patent are invalid and/or unenforceable for failing to meet
`
`one or more of the requisite conditions for patentability specified in Title 35 U.S.C., or the rules,
`
`regulations, and laws related thereto, including, without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103
`
`and/or 112.
`
`SECOND DEFENSE
`(Non-infringement)
`
`
`
`Garmin has not infringed, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any valid
`
`and enforceable claim of the ’576 Patent and is not liable for any infringement.
`
`THIRD DEFENSE
`(Injunctive Relief Unavailable)
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 59 Filed 11/25/19 Page 7 of 9
`
`
`
`LoganTree is not entitled to injunctive relief, as a matter of law, and cannot satisfy the
`
`requirements applicable to its request for injunctive relief in any form.
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE
`(Limitation on Damages and Costs)
`
`LoganTree’s claim for damages and other remedies from Garmin is barred, in whole or in
`
`part, by 35 U.S.C. §§ 285, 286, and/or 288, and may additionally be limited by 28 U.S.C. § 1498.
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE
`(Failure to Mark)
`
`
`
`LoganTree’s claims for damages for purported patent infringement are limited at least in
`
`part by 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`SIXTH DEFENSE
`(No Willful Infringement)
`
`
`
`LoganTree has failed to set forth sufficient factual allegations in its Complaint to support
`
`an allegation of willful infringement. There are not sufficient well pleaded facts in the Complaint
`
`to give rise to a plausible inference that Garmin acted—or will in the future act—recklessly despite
`
`an objectively high risk of infringement. A solitary request for treble damages under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`284 in the Prayer for Relief is insufficient to give rise to a plausible claim of willful infringement.
`
`SEVENTH DEFENSE
`(Absolute and Equitable Intervening Rights)
`
`LoganTree’s claim for purported patent infringement is barred at least in part by 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`§ 252.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Garmin respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment that:
`
`a. Finds in favor of Garmin and against LoganTree;
`
`b. Denies LoganTree’s prayer for injunctive relief;
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 59 Filed 11/25/19 Page 8 of 9
`
`c. Declares that the claims of the ‘576 Patent are invalid;
`
`d. Declares that Garmin does not infringe the ‘576 Patent;
`
`e. Declares that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
`
`f. Awards Garmin its costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action;
`
`g. Grants any and all further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Garmin hereby demands a
`
`trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`DESIGNATION OF TRIAL
`
`
`
`Garmin respectfully requests that all hearings and the trial of this matter be held at the
`
`United States District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 25, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Clifford T. Brazen
`Clifford T. Brazen, KS Bar #27408
`Adam P. Seitz, KS Bar #21059
`Megan J. Redmond, KS Bar #21999
`Carrie A. Bader, KS Bar #24436
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`7015 College Blvd., Suite. 700
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`Phone: 913.777.5600
`Facsimile: 913.777.5601
`adam.seitz@eriseip.com
`megan.redmond@eriseip.com
`carrie.bader@eriseip.com
`cliff.brazen@eriseip.com
`
`
`Counsel for Defendants Garmin
`International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 59 Filed 11/25/19 Page 9 of 9
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that, on November 25, 2019, 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 via the Court’s CM/ECF system
`
`accordingly.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Clifford T. Brazen
`Clifford T. Brazen
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
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
