LoganTree LP v. Garmin International, Inc. et al
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 10 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying as moot 15 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint; denying as moot 15 Motion for Hearing; denying 19 Motion for Hearing. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 7/18/2018. (cm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
LOGANTREE LP,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 17-1217-EFM-KGS
GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. and
GARMIN USA, INC.,
Defendants.
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
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
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;
a power source;
a 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 userdefined 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-
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 accelerometerbased 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-
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-
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-
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-
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-
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-
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-
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-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?