Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-01786/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-01786-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VISA U.S.A. INC., a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff and Counterdefendant,

 v.

FIRST DATA CORPORATION, a Delaware

corporation; FIRST DATA RESOURCES,

INC., a Delaware corporation; and FIRST

DATA MERCHANT SERVICES

CORPORATION, a Florida corporation,

Defendants and

Counterclaimants.

 /

No. C 02-01786 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING

AND QUESTIONS ON VISA’S

MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON AUGUST 5, 2005 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited

in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities

reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties

submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities

only, without argument or additional briefing. See N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties

will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

The Court tentatively DENIES Visa’s motion for summary judgment establishing that

Visa is a single entity as to authorization, clearing and settlement of Visa transactions.

Case 3:02-cv-01786-JSW Document 919 Filed 08/03/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

The parties will each have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

(1) Doesn’t Visa’s ban on use of First Data’s services restrain competition among its

member-competitors, as some banks would have a market advantage over the other

banks if they could pay less for the authorization, clearing and settlement (“ACS”)

process from First Data? Doesn’t Visa’s ban prevent its bank members from potentially

buying a service for less, with the effect of limiting competition as between the bank

members on lowering transaction costs for the service? 

(2) Is the issue of whether Visa is a single entity as to the authorization, clearing and

settlement of Visa transactions a matter of fact or law? 

(a) As to the establishment of undisputed facts, Visa only proffers a

declaration by its Executive Vice President of Interchange Strategy,

William Sheedy, and in response to First Data’s evidentiary objections to

his lay opinion testimony, claims that the “facts” as to which he testifies

are not material. Are there disputed material facts?

(b) Why is paragraph 12 of the Sheedy declaration inadmissible lay testimony

if VISA relies upon it for the premise of its legal argument that the ACS

system is a network function, or “a function that needs to be performed

precisely because a network has been created”? Even if the statement is

admissible, is it disputed?

(c) What material facts does First Data contend remain to be tried with

respect to the single entity issue?

(3) Is Visa’s argument that because ACS is a necessary or core function of the Visa network,

and therefore not an individual function of its participant members, Visa acts as a single

entity vis-a-vis ACS merely tautological? Even if it is true that the ACS system would

not exist without interconnectivity of horizontal competitors, can the Court find that

those competitors, when left to their own devices, might compete in the marketplace for

a lower priced service?

(4) Should the Court grant Visa’s motion, what effect would such a ruling have on First

Data’s antitrust counterclaims? How would such a finding have any bearing on the

Section 2 claims?

(5) Do the parties wish to address any additional issues?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-01786-JSW Document 919 Filed 08/03/05 Page 2 of 2