Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-01786/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-01786-39/pdf.json

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

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

TENTATIVE RULING AND

QUESTIONS RE 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 DECEMBER 6, 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. Civ. L.R. 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 partial summary judgment.

Case 3:02-cv-01786-JSW Document 1097 Filed 12/07/05 Page 1 of 2
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

The parties shall have 25 minutes to address the following questions:

1. What is the purported relationship between Visa’s Operating Regulations and the

ban on intra-processing? Is the targeted Regulation aimed at honoring all cards

presented to merchants (Visa Operating Regulation 5.2.D.2) or is it aimed at

prohibiting merchants from offering discounts at the point of sale (Visa

Operating Regulation 5.2.D.3)? If it is Section 5.2.D.3, what is an Affinity

card? What is First Data’s theory of the relationship and how it gives rise to

antitrust claims? Does Visa impermissibly parse the claims in the complaint?

2. What party, if any, does Visa contend has standing to pursue an antitrust claim

against them for alleged interchange overcharge practices? This Court has held

that merchants are indirect purchasers and therefore lack standing under Illinois

Brick v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977). See Kendall v. Visa, U.S.A., Inc., C 04-

4276 JSW, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21450 (July 25, 2005). Visa contends that the

practices alleged by First Data harm merchants, not acquirers. What party in the

transaction has standing to allege antitrust violations against Visa?

3. Visa argues that the actual transaction at issue here occurs between an issuer and

merchant, and therefore First Data, if considered an acquirer, does not have

standing to pursue the claim against overcharging interchange fees. If a credit

card transaction necessarily includes the acquirers who pay the interchange fees,

is Visa’s segregation of the integral transactions a supportable legal position? 

4. In its Order in Kendall, this Court held that both acquiring banks and processing

agents would have standing to allege antitrust violations with regard to the

setting of interchange fees. Does First Data maintain that it has standing only as

an acquirer, or also as a processor? 

5. What are the parties’ positions on the relevant market here for First Data’s

damages claims? 

6. How does First Data sustain its attempt to monopolize claim for debit

transactions where the successful elimination of intraprocessing may only

increase Visa’s share of putative market by 2%?

7. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-01786-JSW Document 1097 Filed 12/07/05 Page 2 of 2