Case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC Document 409 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 60
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`------------------------------------------------------------------------ X
`
`
`
`:
`
`:
`IN RE: KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN SINGLE-SERVE
`:
`COFFEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`:
`
`X
`------------------------------------------------------------------------
`
`:
`
`:
`:
`This Document Pertains To:
`:
`
`:
`Case No. 1:14-cv-00905 (VSB)
`
`:
`------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
`
`
`
`
`ECF Case
`
`MDL No. 2542
`
`Master Docket No.
`1:14-md-02542 (VSB)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER AND DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC. TO
`AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FILED BY
`TREEHOUSE FOODS, INC., BAY VALLEY FOODS, LLC, AND STURM FOODS, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`------------------------------------------------------------------------ X
`
`
`
`:
`
`:
`IN RE: KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN SINGLE-SERVE
`:
`COFFEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`:
`
`X
`------------------------------------------------------------------------
`
`:
`
`:
`:
`This Document Pertains To:
`:
`
`:
`Case No. 1:14-cv-00905 (VSB)
`
`:
`------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
`
`
`
`
`ECF Case
`
`MDL No. 2542
`
`Master Docket No.
`1:14-md-02542 (VSB)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER AND DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC. TO
`AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FILED BY
`TREEHOUSE FOODS, INC., BAY VALLEY FOODS, LLC, AND STURM FOODS, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC Document 409 Filed 01/16/18 Page 2 of 60
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendant Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. (“Keurig”) hereby answers and responds to the
`
`Amended and Supplemental Complaint (No. 14-CV-905, ECF No. 86) (“Complaint”) filed by
`
`Plaintiffs TreeHouse Foods, Inc., Bay Valley Foods, LLC, and Sturm Foods, Inc. (collectively
`
`“TreeHouse,” “Plaintiff,” or “Plaintiffs”). To the extent not specifically admitted herein, Keurig
`
`denies all of the allegations in the Complaint. In addition, to the extent Plaintiff purports to quote
`
`from documents in the Complaint, Keurig refers to the documents themselves for their actual and
`
`complete contents. Keurig has not attempted to verify the accuracy of Plaintiff’s quotations or even
`
`that the documents exist. To the extent the quotations are incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading, or
`
`the underlying documents do not exist, Keurig denies the allegations. Keurig will insist on strict
`
`proof of any allegations, assuming such allegations are deemed admissible, as to which Keurig
`
`reserves its rights. Keurig’s use of the Complaint’s defined terms is intended solely for the Court’s
`
`convenience; Keurig denies that Plaintiff has defined these terms appropriately.
`
`GENERAL DENIAL
`
`Keurig denies that it has engaged in illegal conduct and that any conduct that it is alleged to
`
`have engaged in has harmed Plaintiffs, competition, or consumers. Keurig denies that Plaintiffs are
`
`entitled to judgment in their favor or for any relief whatsoever, including the relief requested in
`
`paragraphs (A) through (Z) of Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief.
`
`SPECIFIC DENIALS
`
`Keurig specifically responds to the allegations in the Complaint as follows:
`
`1. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 1.
`
`2. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 2.
`
`3. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 3.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC Document 409 Filed 01/16/18 Page 3 of 60
`
`4. Keurig admits that it sells portion packs made by or under a license from Keurig.
`
`Keurig admits that some of its patents pertaining to portion packs expired in 2012. Keurig
`
`denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 4.
`
`5. Keurig admits that it designed the new Keurig 2.0 brewer to work with Keurig-
`
`licensed portion packs and accurately disclosed this fact to consumers. Keurig denies the
`
`remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 5, except that it refers to the referenced documents for
`
`their actual and complete contents.
`
`6. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 6, except that it refers to the referenced
`
`statements for their actual and complete contents.
`
`7. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 7, except that it refers to the referenced
`
`documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`8. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 8.
`
`9. Keurig admits that it introduced the new Vue brewer in 2012. Keurig admits that
`
`some of its patents were set to expire in 2012. Keurig admits that the Vue, despite its superior
`
`technology, failed to gain the consumer acceptance that Keurig hoped for. Keurig denies the
`
`remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 9.
`
`10. Keurig admits that the project name in Paragraph 10 was a code name given to a
`
`project related to ink. Keurig admits that Kevin Sullivan met in July 2012 with the consulting
`
`firm named in Paragraph 10. Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 10,
`
`except that it refers to the cited statement for its actual and complete contents.
`
`11. Keurig admits that it designed the new Keurig 2.0 brewer to work with Keurig-
`
`licensed portion packs and accurately disclosed this fact to consumers. Keurig denies the
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC Document 409 Filed 01/16/18 Page 4 of 60
`
`remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 11, except that it refers to the referenced documents for
`
`their actual and complete contents.
`
`12. Keurig admits that it designed the new 2.0 brewer to work with Keurig-licensed
`
`portion packs. Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 12, except that it refers
`
`to the referenced documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`13. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 13, except that it refers to the cited
`
`documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`14. Keurig admits that it met with the named consulting firm on multiple occasions in the
`
`ordinary course of its consulting relationship to discuss brewer design. Keurig denies the remainder
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 14, except that it refers to the referenced statements for their actual
`
`and complete contents.
`
`15. Keurig admits that some of its patents expired in 2012. Keurig denies the
`
`remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 15.
`
`16. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 16.
`
`17. Keurig admits that it built interactive technology into its new 2.0 brewers to
`
`identify and help optimally brew Keurig-licensed portion packs. Keurig denies the remainder of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 17.
`
`18. Keurig admits that the interactive technology in the new 2.0 brewer recognizes the
`
`format of the inserted cup and adjusts settings accordingly. Keurig denies the remainder of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 18, except that it refers to the referenced statements for their actual and
`
`complete contents.
`
`19. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 19.
`
`20. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 20.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC Document 409 Filed 01/16/18 Page 5 of 60
`
`21. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 21.
`
`22. Keurig admits that it regularly competes for customers and brands and wins and loses
`
`business. Keurig refers to the cited document for its actual and complete contents.
`
`23. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 23.
`
`24. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 24, except that it refers to the cited
`
`document for its actual and complete contents.
`
`25. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 25.
`
`26. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 26, except that it refers to the cited
`
`document for its actual and complete contents.
`
`27. Keurig admits that, like other companies that sell coffee, following a significant
`
`increase in costs, on November 3, 2014 Keurig raised prices on portion packs and bulk coffee.
`
`Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 27.
`
`28. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 28.
`
`29. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 29, except that it refers to
`
`representative referenced documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`30. Keurig admits that it did not create third-party suppliers or distributors, buy their
`
`trucks, or hire their personnel. Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 30.
`
`31. Keurig admits that some of its distributors were distributing before they first
`
`began receiving support and training from Keurig. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph
`
`31, except that it refers to the referenced statement for its actual and complete contents.
`
`32. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 32.
`
`33. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 33, except that it refers to
`
`representative referenced documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC Document 409 Filed 01/16/18 Page 6 of 60
`
`34. Keurig admits that its distributors have exceeded 600 in number. Keurig denies
`
`the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 34, except that it refers to representative
`
`referenced documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`35. Keurig admits that it raised portion pack prices in 2010, 2011, and 2014. Keurig
`
`denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 35.
`
`36. Keurig admits that it raised portion pack prices in 2010 and 2011. Keurig denies
`
`the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 36.
`
`37. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 37.
`
`38. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 38, except that it refers to
`
`representative referenced documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`39. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 39.
`
`40. Keurig admits that TreeHouse used production lines to manufacture portion packs
`
`that TreeHouse filled with instant coffee. Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 40.
`
`41. Keurig admits that it sued TreeHouse’s subsidiary, Sturm. Keurig denies the
`
`remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 41, except that it refers to its complaint in Keurig Inc.
`
`v. Sturm Foods Inc., No. 1:10-cv-00841-SLR-MPT (D. Del.) (“the Sturm litigation”), for its
`
`actual and complete contents.
`
`42. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 42, except that it refers to the cited
`
`judicial proceedings for their actual and complete contents.
`
`43. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 43, except that it refers to the cited
`
`judicial proceedings for their actual and complete contents.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC Document 409 Filed 01/16/18 Page 7 of 60
`
`44. Keurig admits that some of its patents expired while the Sturm litigation was
`
`pending. Keurig admits that TreeHouse and others entered and that TreeHouse sold portion
`
`packs without filters that contained instant coffee. Keurig denies the remainder of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 44.
`
`45. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 45.
`
`46. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 46.
`
`47. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 47.
`
`48. Keurig lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 48.
`
`49. Keurig lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 49.
`
`50. Keurig lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 50.
`
`51. Keurig denies that the principal place of business of Keurig, Incorporated was
`
`always in Reading, Massachusetts. Keurig admits the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph
`
`51.
`
`52. Keurig admits the allegations in Paragraph 52.
`
`53. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 53.
`
`54. Keurig admits that it has a contract with the company and for the product type
`
`named in the last sentence of Paragraph 54. Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 54.
`
`55. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 55.
`
`56. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 56.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC Document 409 Filed 01/16/18 Page 8 of 60
`
`57. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 57. Keurig does not contest that this
`
`Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over these federal-law claims.
`
`58. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 58. Keurig does not contest that this
`
`Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims, but Keurig reserves
`
`the right to contest supplemental jurisdiction in the event that the Plaintiff’s federal-law claims
`
`are ever dropped, dismissed, or otherwise removed from this case.
`
`59. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 59. Keurig does not contest that this
`
`Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims, but Keurig reserves
`
`the right to contest supplemental jurisdiction in the event that the Plaintiff’s federal-law claims
`
`are ever dropped, dismissed, or otherwise removed from this case.
`
`60. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 60. Keurig does not contest that this
`
`Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims, but Keurig reserves
`
`the right to contest supplemental jurisdiction in the event that the Plaintiff’s federal-law claims
`
`are ever dropped, dismissed, or otherwise removed from this case.
`
`61. Keurig does not contest that this Court has personal jurisdiction over it.
`
`62. Keurig admits that it regularly does business in New York, is present in New
`
`York, and has minimum contacts with New York. Keurig does not contest that this Court has
`
`personal jurisdiction over it. Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 62.
`
`63. Keurig admits that it resides, is licensed to do business in, is doing business in,
`
`had agents in, or is found or transacts business in this District. Keurig admits that venue in the
`
`Southern District of New York is proper. Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 63.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC Document 409 Filed 01/16/18 Page 9 of 60
`
`64. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 64. Keurig refers to the cited
`
`document for its actual and complete contents.
`
`65. Keurig admits that Keurig brewers are a quick, convenient, and simple way to
`
`brew many kinds of hot beverages. Keurig admits that users of the Vue brewer can choose
`
`several brew sizes, and that users of the 2.0 brewer can choose several brew sizes including a
`
`carafe. Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 65.
`
`66. Keurig admits that, among other competitors, it competes with companies that
`
`produce brewers. Keurig refers to the referenced documents for their actual and complete
`
`contents. Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 66.
`
`67. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 67, except that it refers to the cited
`
`documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`68. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 68, except that it refers to
`
`representative referenced documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`69. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 69.
`
`70. Keurig admits that Keurig brewers, like other brewers capable of preparing hot
`
`water, can be used to prepare many kinds of hot beverages. Keurig denies the remainder of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 70.
`
`71. Keurig admits that food products can be prepared using some Single-Serve
`
`Brewers. Keurig lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remainder
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 71.
`
`72. Keurig admits that Keurig brewers are sold for a range of prices. Keurig denies
`
`the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 72.
`
`73. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 73.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC Document 409 Filed 01/16/18 Page 10 of 60
`
`74. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 74, except that it refers to the
`
`referenced statement for its actual and complete contents.
`
`75. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 75.
`
`76. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 76, except that it refers to the
`
`referenced statement for its actual and complete contents.
`
`77. Keurig lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 77.
`
`78. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 78, except that it refers to the
`
`referenced document for its actual and complete contents.
`
`79. Keurig admits that it designs, manufactures, and sells single-serve brewers under
`
`the Keurig brand. Keurig admits that it licenses brewer technology to Mr. Coffee and Cuisinart.
`
`Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 79.
`
`80. Keurig admits that it sells 2.0 brewers and 1.0 brewers, and that it has sold Rivo
`
`brewers. Keurig admits that some 2.0 portion packs can be used in both 2.0 and 1.0 brewers.
`
`Keurig admits that Rivo portion packs are shaped differently than 2.0-brewer portion packs.
`
`Keurig admits that portion packs designed for use solely with 1.0 brewers are incompatible with
`
`2.0 brewers. Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 80.
`
`81. Keurig admits that it sold the Vue brewer, which was discontinued in 2014.
`
`Keurig admits that it sells Vue portion packs, which are shaped differently than K-Cup portion
`
`packs and Rivo portion packs. Keurig admits that K-Cup portion packs and Rivo portion packs
`
`cannot be used in Vue brewers, and that Vue portion packs cannot be used in Rivo brewers or in
`
`1.0 brewers. Keurig admits that Vue portion packs can be used in 2.0 brewers. To the extent
`
`Paragraph 81 includes further allegations, Keurig denies them.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC Document 409 Filed 01/16/18 Page 11 of 60
`
`82. Keurig admits that Keurig brewers are sold for a range of prices. Keurig lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the former prices of Mr. Coffee and
`
`Breville brewers. Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 82.
`
`83. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 83. Keurig refers to the cited
`
`document for its actual and complete contents.
`
`84. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 84. Keurig refers to the cited
`
`document for its actual and complete contents.
`
`85. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 85.
`
`86. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 86.
`
`87. Keurig admits that it has sold over 30 million Keurig-branded brewers, which are
`
`used in over 15 million households. Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph
`
`87.
`
`88. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 88.
`
`89. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 89, except that it refers to
`
`representative referenced documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`90. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 90. Keurig refers to the referenced
`
`document for its actual and complete contents.
`
`91. Keurig admits that it has shipped 2.0 brewers to consumers in accordance with
`
`brewer warranties. Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 91.
`
`92. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 92, except that it refers to the cited
`
`document for its actual and complete contents.
`
`93. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 93, except that it refers to the cited
`
`document for its actual and complete contents.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC Document 409 Filed 01/16/18 Page 12 of 60
`
`94. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 94, except that it refers to the cited
`
`document for its actual and complete contents.
`
`95. Keurig admits that it owns patents related to brewers. Keurig denies the
`
`remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 95.
`
`96. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 96.
`
`97. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 97, except that it refers to the
`
`referenced statement for its actual and complete contents.
`
`98. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 98.
`
`99. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 99. Keurig refers to the referenced
`
`document for its actual and complete contents.
`
`100. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 100, except that it refers to
`
`representative referenced documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`101. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 101.
`
`102. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 102, except that it refers to
`
`representative referenced documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`103. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 103, except that it refers to
`
`representative referenced documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`104. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 104.
`
`105. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 105.
`
`106. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 106.
`
`107. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 107.
`
`108. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 108.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC Document 409 Filed 01/16/18 Page 13 of 60
`
`109. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 109. Keurig refers to the cited
`
`documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`110. Keurig admits that it has sold billions of portion packs since 1998. Keurig denies
`
`the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 110.
`
`111. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 111. Keurig refers to the referenced
`
`statements for their actual and complete contents.
`
`112. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 112, except that it refers to the cited
`
`document for its actual and complete contents.
`
`113. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 113, except that it refers to the cited
`
`documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`114. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 114, except that it refers to the
`
`referenced statement for its actual and complete contents.
`
`115. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 115.
`
`116. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 116.
`
`117. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 117, except that it refers to the
`
`referenced statement for its actual and complete contents.
`
`118. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 118, except that it refers to the cited
`
`documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`119. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 119.
`
`120. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 120, except that it refers to the
`
`referenced statement for its actual and complete contents.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC Document 409 Filed 01/16/18 Page 14 of 60
`
`121. Keurig admits that it owns some rights related to Tully’s Coffee, Timothy’s
`
`Coffees of the World, Diedrich Coffee, Original Donut Shop, and Van Houtte. Keurig denies
`
`the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 121.
`
`122. Keurig admits that it has beverage brands under which it sells portion packs.
`
`Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 122.
`
`123. Keurig admits that it has agreements with roasters and brands including those
`
`listed in Paragraph 123. Keurig admits that it owns or has licenses in effect with more than
`
`sixty brands. Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 123.
`
`124. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 124, except that it refers to the
`
`referenced statement for its actual and complete contents.
`
`125. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 125, except that it refers to the cited
`
`documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`126. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 126.
`
`127. Keurig admits that its consolidated net sales of portion packs were approximately
`
`$2.7 billion in fiscal year 2012 and approximately $3.2 billion in fiscal year 2013. Keurig
`
`denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 127.
`
`128. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 128.
`
`129. Keurig admits that it entered into deals with manufacturers and distributors in
`
`2014. Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 129, except that it refers to
`
`the referenced statement for its actual and complete contents.
`
`130. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 130. Keurig refers to the referenced
`
`document for its actual and complete contents.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC Document 409 Filed 01/16/18 Page 15 of 60
`
`131. Keurig admits that it sometimes sells brewers at or near cost. Keurig denies the
`
`remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 131. Keurig refers to the cited document for its actual
`
`and complete contents.
`
`132. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 132.
`
`133. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 133.
`
`134. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 134.
`
`135. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 135.
`
`136. Keurig admits that it has patents related to brewer technology. Keurig denies the
`
`remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 136.
`
`137. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 137. Keurig refers to the referenced
`
`statements for their actual and complete contents.
`
`138. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 138.
`
`139. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 139.
`
`140. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 140.
`
`141. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 141.
`
`142. Keurig admits that it sold more than 150,000 2.0 brewers in the first quarter that
`
`they were available. Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 142.
`
`143. Keurig admits that it incurs costs to buy ink for its portion packs through a
`
`contract with an ink producer. Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 143.
`
`144. Keurig lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in the last sentence of Paragraph 144. Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations
`
`in Paragraph 144.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC Document 409 Filed 01/16/18 Page 16 of 60
`
`145. Keurig lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 145.
`
`146. Keurig lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 146.
`
`147. Keurig lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 147.
`
`148. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 148.
`
`149. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 149.
`
`150. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 150.
`
`151. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 151.
`
`152. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 152.
`
`153. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 153 and incorporates its responses to
`
`paragraphs 110 through 120.
`
`154. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 154 and incorporates its responses to
`
`paragraphs 135 through 144.
`
`155. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 155.
`
`156. Keurig admits that it has patents related to brewer technology. Keurig denies the
`
`remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 156.
`
`157. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 157.
`
`158. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 158.
`
`159. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 159.
`
`160. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 160.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC Document 409 Filed 01/16/18 Page 17 of 60
`
`161. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 161, except that it refers to the cited
`
`article for its actual and complete contents.
`
`162. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 162.
`
`163. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 163.
`
`164. Keurig lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to where
`
`brewers and portion packs are sold in all retail stores. Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations
`
`in Paragraph 164.
`
`165. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 165, except that it refers to the
`
`referenced statements for their actual and complete contents.
`
`166. Keurig admits that it has given away brewers as part of limited-time promotions.
`
`Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 166.
`
`167. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 167.
`
`168. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 168.
`
`169. Keurig admits that over 15 million brewers have been sold. To the extent
`
`Paragraph 169 includes further allegations, Keurig lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to their truth.
`
`170. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 170, except that it refers to the cited
`
`document for its actual and complete contents.
`
`171. Keurig admits the allegations in Paragraph 171.
`
`172. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 172.
`
`173. Keurig admits that some brewers sold to commercial customers are different from
`
`and are designed for more usage than brewers sold for home use. Keurig denies the remainder
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 173.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC Document 409 Filed 01/16/18 Page 18 of 60
`
`174. Keurig admits that it markets the K3000SE for offices. Keurig denies the
`
`remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 174.
`
`175. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 175.
`
`176. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 176, except that it refers to the cited
`
`documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`177. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 177.
`
`178. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 178.
`
`179. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 179.
`
`180. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 180.
`
`181. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 181.
`
`182. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 182, except that it refers to
`
`representative referenced documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`183. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 183, except that it refers to
`
`representative referenced documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`184. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 184.
`
`185. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 185, except that it refers to
`
`representative referenced documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`186. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 186.
`
`187. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 187, except that it refers to
`
`representative referenced documents for their actual and complete contents.
`
`188. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 188.
`
`189. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 189, except that it refers to the
`
`referenced statement for its actual and complete contents.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC Document 409 Filed 01/16/18 Page 19 of 60
`
`190. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 190.
`
`191. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 191.
`
`192. Keurig admits the allegations in Paragraph 192.
`
`193. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 193.
`
`194. Keurig admits the allegations in Paragraph 194.
`
`195. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 195.
`
`196. Keurig admits that it has sold brewers at or near cost. Keurig denies the
`
`remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 196, except that it refers to the cited statements for
`
`their actual and complete contents.
`
`197. Keurig admits the allegations in Paragraph 197.
`
`198. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 198, except that it refers to the
`
`referenced document for its actual and complete contents.
`
`199. Keurig admits that it began development of brewers and portion packs in the early
`
`1990s and licensed various companies. To the extent Paragraph 199 includes further
`
`allegations, Keurig denies them.
`
`200. Keurig admits that it entered into an agreement with GMCR in the late 1990s that
`
`included licenses to, among other things, patents related to portion-pack filters. To the extent
`
`Paragraph 200 includes further allegations, Keurig denies them.
`
`201. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 201.
`
`202. Keurig admits that it acquired Keurig, Incorporated in June 2006. Keurig admits
`
`that it acquired portions of Tully’s Coffee Corporation in 2009; Timothy’s Coffees of the
`
`World, Inc. in 2009; Diedrich Coffee, Inc. in 2010; and Van Houtte in 2010. Keurig denies the
`
`remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 202.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC Document 409 Filed 01/16/18 Page 20 of 60
`
`203. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 203. Keurig refers to the referenced
`
`document for its actual and complete contents.
`
`204. Keurig admits that it was ranked second on Fortune’s Global 100 Fastest-
`
`Growing Companies in 2010. Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 204,
`
`except that it refers to the referenced document for its actual and complete contents.
`
`205. Keurig admits that it announced a price increase in September 2010. Keurig
`
`denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 205.
`
`206. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 206, except that it refers to the cited
`
`document for its actual and complete contents.
`
`207. Keurig denies the allegations in Paragraph 207.
`
`208. Keurig admits that it announced a price increase in September 2010 that it
`
`expected to fully implement by February 2011. Keurig denies the remainder of the allegations
`
`in Paragraph 208.
`
`209. Keurig admits that it raised list prices in June 2011. Keurig denies the remainder
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 209, except that it refers to the referenced document for its actual
`
`and complete contents.
`
`210. Keurig lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 210.
`
`2
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
