Joint Appendix One

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Case ;
t
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
tO
l:l
12
1.3
14
15
1.6
17
18
19
20
2]
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10-cv-07678-JFW-DTB Document 64-2 Filed 10/07/11 Page 11 of 15 Page ID
#: 1234
44. The VM printer set forth in the October 18 letter with price quotations
is the same Coca-Cola printer referred to by Mr. Meyerhofer in his first, second
and third declarations to the PTO.
45. The October 18 letter included higher prices for production unit
quantity ($402.50 to $457.50) _md phase 1 prototypes ($23,500) compared to the
April 25 letter, but the same price ($850) for phase two prototype units. The price
changes reflected the additional features requested by Coca-Cola.
46. In November 1999 and April 2000, Coca-Cola sent purchase orders to
FutureLogic for 24 VM printers at $850 each.
printers.
47.
By March 10, 2000, Futurelogic had produced at least fifteen VM
48. After receipt of Coca-Cola's April 2000 purchase order, on or about
April 14, 2000, Futurelogic shipped the 24 VM Printers to Coca-Cola. Invoices for
these units were issued by FutureLogic on April 117, 18 and 20, 2000, respectively,
to Coca-Cola.
49. Futurelogic was not privy to the locations or the models of the
vending machines in which Coca-Cola installed the printers for use in the field.
50. Coca-Cola placed the 24 VM printers at locations throughout
Cincinnati, Ohio and FutureLogic was not present when Coca-Cola installed the
units in the field for use by customers of its vending machines.
51. The VM printers were still in use as of February 15, 2001 and the
field test was successful.
52. Out of the 24 VM printers provided to Coca-Cola, Coca-Cola
returned only two or three printers to Futurelogic for repair or replacement.
53. During the prosecution of the '855 patent, FutureLogic, the inventor
and his patent attorney intentionally failed to disclose to the PTO the April 25 and
-A0343-
- 10 - Case No. CV 10-7678-JFW-DTB
Nanoptix. Inc.'s First Amended Answer and Counlerclaims