Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04143/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04143-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

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

*E-filed 3/2/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CRYPTOGRAPHY RESEARCH, INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

VISA INTERNATIONAL SERVICE

ASSOCIATION,

Defendants. /

Case No. C04-04143 JW (HRL)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL

On February 28, 2006 the court heard plaintiff's motion to compel discovery from both

defendant Visa International and non-party Visa USA. Based on the papers submitted and the

arguments of counsel, the court issues the following order.

I. BACKGROUND

This motion arises out of a suit for patent infringement, breach of contract, and

misrepresentation in which plaintiff Cryptography Research, Inc. (“CRI”) accuses Visa

International ("Int'l") of unlawfully using CRI's patented software applications in Visa Smart

Card debit and credit cards. Back in 1998, CRI licensed to Int'l a security software application

for use in Smart Cards that protects against "differential power analysis" ("DPA"), a technique

used by hackers to breach security measures implemented on the cards. CRI alleges that Int'l

continued to promulgate the use of CRI's technology among its microchip and card

manufacturers after it cancelled the licensing agreement with CRI, thereby inducing

infringement of CRI's patents.

Case 5:04-cv-04143-JW Document 206 Filed 03/02/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

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 1

USA's request is granted. The court also grants Int'l's request to file a supplemental response, which

merely echoed USA's supplemental arguments.

2

CRI served discovery requests on Int'l in December, 2004. Dissatisfied with the

responses because they did not include documents from defendant's American affiliate, CRI

subpoenaed the information directly from non-party Visa USA ("USA").

CRI now moves to compel the production of responsive documents from both Visa

entities—USA pursuant to Rule 45 and Int’l pursuant to Rule 34. It asserts that USA

wrongfully limited its production to something less than what was requested by CRI by

objecting to and refusing to comply with definitions utilized by CRI in the subpoena. CRI's

motion focused on USA's objections to eight document categories in particular, although the

disputed definitions have an effect on the scope of the subpoena in general. CRI also asks the

court to compel production of the same documents by Int'l under the theory that Int'l controls

documents possessed by USA. It is this latter request that CRI champions in its Reply. 

This motion raises two distinct issues: 

(1) Which entity, defendant Int’l or USA, should be required to respond to the discovery

request/subpoena? CRI seeks virtually identical information from both, so practically speaking,

only one need produce it.

(2) Whether CRI’s definitions of “Smart Card” and “Accused Product” in the discovery

requests/subpoena are too broad? The Visa entities contend that CRI’s proposed definitions

reach information that is irrelevant to this litigation.

Prior to the hearing on this motion, USA requested leave to file a supplemental response

to CRI’s motion. The supplemental brief stated that: (1) USA agrees to produce documents

responsive to the subpoena using CRI’s definition of Accused Product and Smart Card. 

However, it is unwilling to produce documents responsive to all forty requests in the subpoena

without first meeting and conferring on the 32 categories that were not raised in this motion;

and (2) USA does not want the court to make a finding on whether Int'l control’s documents

possessed by USA. However, if the court intends to consider CRI’s argument that Int'l controls

USA, USA disputes that such control exists.1

 

Case 5:04-cv-04143-JW Document 206 Filed 03/02/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

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

CRI agreed to modify the definitions during the meet and confer process. The modified definitions are

given here.

3

II. DISCUSSION

CRI originally moved to compel production of virtually identical information from both

USA and Int'l. The court interpreted these to be alternative motions—either USA or Int'l must

respond, but not both. Any other interpretation would violate Rule 26's prohibition against

unreasonably cumulative or duplicative discovery. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2). 

Because USA has agreed to produce documents in response to the subpoena, it is not

necessary at this time for the court to decide whether Int'l controls documents possessed by

USA. Under the present circumstances, that question is moot.

USA also agreed to employ CRI's definitions in preparing its response to the subpoena. 

Those definitions are as follows:2

The term “Accused Product” shall mean any product identified in CRI's

Preliminary Infringement Contentions, and any other smart card designed to bear

or that bear the Visa brand logo and/or designed to comply with or that does

comply with Visa standards and/or specifications, provided that such card is

resistant to and/or contains countermeasures for external monitoring attacks, and 

any ancillary devises as that term is defined in the CRI-Visa License Agreement. 

This definition specifically includes but is not limited to contactless or dual

interface cards with chips containing countermeasures for external monitoring

attacks.

The term “Smart Card” as used herein shall mean an include a card containing a

secure microprocessor device suitable for identification or financial transactions

including without limitation cards substantially conforming (or intended to

conform) to any of the ISO 7816, 10536 and/or 14443 standards, and the

technology for use therein, provided that such card and/or microprocessor device

is resistant to and/or contains countermeasures for external monitoring attacks. 

This definition specifically includes but is not limited to contactless or dual

interface cards with chips containing countermeasures for external monitoring

attacks.

As far as the court is concerned, this development moots the "definitional" issue raised

in CRI's motion. Any additional disputes about the scope of the requested discovery must be

brought in a new motion before the court.

//

//

//

Case 5:04-cv-04143-JW Document 206 Filed 03/02/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

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

4

III. CONCLUSION

CRI’s motion is denied as moot. USA shall produce documents responsive to CRI’s

subpoena using CRI’s modified definitions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/2/06 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-04143-JW Document 206 Filed 03/02/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

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

5

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

Willard R. Burns burnsw@pepperlaw.com, krugerb@pepperlaw.com 

Laurie Michelle Charrington lcharrington@gmail.com 

Darren E. Donnelly ddonnelly@fenwick.com

Michael A. Duncheon mduncheon@hansonbridgett.com,

ypete@hansonbridgett.com

J. David Hadden dhadden@fenwick.com

Kathryn M. Kenyon kenyonk@pepperlaw.com, krugerb@pepperlaw.com 

Martin F. Majestic MMajestic@hansonbridgett.com,

IPFilings@hansonbridgett.com 

W. Joseph Melnik melnikj@pepperlaw.com, nelsonl@pepperlaw.com 

Lynn H. Pasahow lpasahow@fenwick.com 

Alka A. Patel patela@pepperlaw.com, carusov@pepperlaw.com 

Alexandra V. Percy apercy@hansonbridgett.com, rcarrillo@hansonbridgett.com,

CalendarClerk@hansonbridgett.com,

wchan@hansonbridgett.com 

Sangeetha M. Raghunathan sraghunathan@fbm.com, dwilliams@fbm.com 

William Paul Schuck wps@mjllp.com 

David Douglas Schumann dschumann@fenwick.com, ncarroll@fenwick.com 

Roderick M. Thompson rthompson@fbm.com, adugan@fbm.com

Ryan Aftel Tyz rtyz@fenwick.com, icampos@fenwick.com 

Erik N. Videlock videlocke@pepperlaw.com 

Jedediah Wakefield jwakefield@fenwick.com 

Marshall C. Wallace mwallace@reedsmith.com 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Dated: 3/2/06

 /s/ RNR 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:04-cv-04143-JW Document 206 Filed 03/02/06 Page 5 of 5