Heartland Recreational Vehicles LLC v. Forest River Inc

Filing 82

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Expert by Defendant Forest River Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P)(Fountain, Ryan)

Heartland Recreational Vehicles LLC v. Forest River Inc

Doc. 82 Att. 8

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

46 Q. My question though is, did he explain to them what was relevant and material prior art with regard to this invention? A. I can't give you the exact language, but he listed the types of things that would be pertinent and relevant, which included prior uses, um, that sort of thing. Q. Do you know if Heartland ever received that letter? A. I have no reason to doubt that they didn't. Q. Well, you read Scott Tuttle's deposition transcript, right? A. I -- yes, I have. Q. Scott said he didn't get that, didn't he? A. Well, I don't think Mr. Tuttle is recalling correctly, because clearly the correspondence was sent. There is no indication that it was not received. They clearly received, um, had to have received it, because the application was part of what was sent out. The application was received and executed, so for Mr. Tuttle to say he didn't receive it, he's just in error.

Dockets.Justia.com