Joint Appendix One

Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2:10-cv-07678-JFW-DTB Document 65-1 Filed 10/07/11 Page 16 of 36 Page ID
#: 1293
Nanoptix's Alleged Uncontroverted Response in Opposition
Facts
44. Coca-Colaplaced the 24 VM
printers at locations throughout
Cincinnati, and FutureLogic was not
present when Coca-Cola installed the
units in the field for use by customers of
its vending machines.
45. On August 15, 2000, Coca-Cola
stated that ",.. FLI' s agreement was
fulfilled with Coke upon delivery of the
Beta printers..."
46. The VM printers were still in use as
of February 15, 2001 and Coca-Cola
indicated that the field test had been
successfid.
47. Out of the 24 VIM printers
provided to Coca-Cola, Coca-Cola
returned only two or three printers to
FutureLogic for repair or replacement.
-A0402-
- 16 -
Rounds Decl., 18-19, Exhibits 19 and
20; Rounds Decl. 22, Meyerhofer Tr.
143:19-145:19.
Disputed. Scott Shimmin of
FutureLogic visited CCE and helped to
install the prototype printers into Coca-
Cola vending machines and CCE
reported details regardfllg file field
testing to FutureLogic. See E.
Meyerhofer Decl. 14; Ex. 23.
Undisputed as to the partial quotation.
Disputed as to the meaning.
FutureLogic remained involved in the
field testing and on-going service of the
prototype units. See infra, 91-111.)
Rounds Decl. 21, Exhibit 22.
Disputed.
Objections to Evidence: The email is
from David Uland to Mark and Eric
Meyerhofer. To the extent that the
document discusses Coca-Cola's
response, the statement assertion is
inadmissible hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid.
80 l(c) & 802.
Rounds Decl. 22, Meyerhofer Tr.
174:12-20.
Disputed. Mark Meyerhofer testified
that he doesn't know. (M. Meyerhofer
Yr. 174:3-20.)
FWI_URELOG[C'S STMT OF ISSUES OF IvlA'rERIAL FACT IN
OPP TO NA NOP'I'IX'S MOTION
2:10-CV-07678-jFW-DTB
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I