`
`
`KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:16-CV-10142-DJC
`
`
`
`TOUCH COFFEE & BEVERAGES, LLC,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MARK WOOD IN SUPPORT OF
`KEURIG’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED
`DISCOVERY AND A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`BRIEFING SCHEDULE
`
`I, Mark Wood, declare and state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am an employee of Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. (“Keurig”). My current
`
`position at Keurig is Chief Business Development and Partners Officer.
`
`2.
`
`My responsibilities at Keurig include licensing, mergers and acquisitions,
`
`partnership management and sales performance.
`
`3.
`
`I am aware that Touch Coffee & Beverages, LLC has requested that this Court
`
`enter a preliminary injunction precluding Keurig from distributing and selling the Keurig 2.0
`
`Brewer System.
`
`4.
`
`The Keurig 2.0 Brewer System, our most recent line of brewer models launched
`
`in early 2014, is vital to Keurig’s strategic plan for the “hot systems” appliance and beverage
`
`product class.
`
`5.
`
`Keurig 2.0 Brewer Systems account for over 35% of Keurig’s brewer sales.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-10142-DJC Document 13 Filed 02/22/16 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`6.
`
`In 2015, Keurig sold over 3 million Keurig 2.0 Brewer Systems, accounting for
`
`sales of over $300 million.
`
`7.
`
`Keurig’s current estimates indicate that Keurig 2.0 Brewer Systems in 2016 will
`
`be on par with sales in 2015 and that Keurig will maintain its market share in the “hot
`
`systems” appliance market.
`
`8.
`
`When Keurig sells a Keurig 2.0 Brewer System, those sales drive a significant
`
`number of sales of Keurig’s licensed K-Cup® Pods and K-Carafe® Pods.
`
`9.
`
`Keurig estimates that loss of the Keurig 2.0 Brewer Systems sales would result in
`
`lost sales of over 1.5 billion K-Cup® Pods and K-Carafe® Pods designed to be used with
`
`those brewers, accounting in lost sales of over $500 million per year.
`
`10.
`
`If Keurig were forced to stop selling the Keurig 2.0 Brewer System it would
`
`severely damage Keurig’s relationships with its sales partners and distributors. That damage
`
`would be incalculable.
`
`11.
`
`Keurig invests heavily in research and development to maintain its reputation as
`
`an innovator with our business partners and the public.
`
`12.
`
`If Keurig were forced to stop selling the Keurig 2.0 brewer it would cause
`
`enormous and incalculable damage to Keurig’s reputation as an innovator with its business
`
`partners and the public.
`
`13.
`
`I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the statements herein are true and correct.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mark Wood
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 19, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-10142-DJC Document 13 Filed 02/22/16 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that I am causing this document to be filed through the Court’s electronic filing
`
`system, which serves counsel for other parties who are registered participants as identified on the
`
`Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Justin C. Colannino
`Justin C. Colannino
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
