Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04143/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04143-21/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Cryptography Research Inc.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Visa International Service Assoc.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 04-04143 JW 

PROPOSED ORDER OF APPOINTMENT

OF A TECHNICAL ADVISOR, MR.

RAINER SCHULZ

I. BACKGROUND

In this lawsuit, Plaintiff Cryptography Research, Inc. (CRI) contends that Defendant Visa

International Service Association (Visa) infringes eight CRI patents involving devices and methods

for the security of financial transactions being conducted using "smartcards." 

Each of the eight U.S. Patents asserted by CRI describe inventions designed to secure the

microprocessor against external monitoring of its electrical properties. These eight patents are U.S.

Patent Nos. 6,327,661 (the '661 patent), 6,278,783 (the '783 patent), 6,298,442 (the '442 patent),

6,304,658 (the '658 patent), 6,381,699 (the '699 patent), 6,539,092 (the '092 patent), 6,510,518 (the

'518 patent), and 6,654,884 (the '884 patent). CRI alleges that certain claims of these patents are

infringed by Visa-branded Smartcards. 

The Court invited the parties to submit a list of claim terms for which they desired a

construction. The parties submitted over 50 words and phrases in dispute. On November 8-9, 2005,

the Court conducted claim construction proceedings. On October 19, 2006, the Court issued its First

Claim Construction Order, which construed approximately 8 terms. (See Docket Item No. 269.) 

Case 5:04-cv-04143-JW Document 297 Filed 03/07/07 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 2

The Court finds that due to the complexity of the case and the patents-in-suit, the Court would

benefit from the services of a technical advisor.

II. STANDARDS

A district judge has inherent authority to appoint a technical advisor when the judge deems it

desirable and necessary. Ass’n of Mexican Am. Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 590 (9th Cir.

2000) (en banc). The exercise of this authority should be used sparingly and only in highly

complicated cases. TechSearch, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp., 286 F.3d 1360, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

(interpreting the Ninth Circuit standard for appointing technical advisors). In those limited cases,

where the complexity of the science and technology involves something well beyond regular

questions of fact and law, the district court has the inherent authority to tap the outside skill and

expertise of a technical advisor. Federal Trade Commission v. Enforma Natural Products, Inc., 362

F.3d 1204, 1213 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Reilly v. United States, 863 F.2d 149, 157 (1st Cir. 1988). 

The technical advisor acts as educator, advising on terminology so that the district court can better

understand complex evidence and properly discharge its role as decision maker. TechSearch, 286

F.3d at 1377. 

In Reilly, while conceding that a district court has inherent authority to appoint an expert as a

technical advisor, the appellant argued that such power is strictly circumscribed by Fed.R.Evid.

706(a). Reilly, 863 F.2d 149, 154 (1st Cir. 1988). The First Circuit held the plain language of

706(a) indicates that the rule is confined to court-appointed expert witnesses and does not embrace

expert advisors or consultants:

[706(a)] establishes a procedural framework for nomination and selection of an expert

witness and for the proper performance of his role after an appointment is accepted. [] By

and large, these modalities--though critically important in the realm customarily occupied by

an expert witness--have marginal, if any, relevance to the functioning of technical advisors. 

Since an advisor, by definition, is called upon to make no findings and to supply no

evidence, [internal citations omitted], provisions for depositions, cross-questioning, and the

like are inapposite. [citations omitted.]

Id. at 155-156.

Case 5:04-cv-04143-JW Document 297 Filed 03/07/07 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

1

Attached to this Proposed Order is a courtesy copy of Mr. Schulz’s resume.

3

III. PROPOSED ORDER OF APPOINTMENT

The Court intends to appoint Mr. Rainer Schulz1 as a “Technical Advisor” under the

following terms:

1. Any advice provides to the Court by Mr. Schulz will not be based on any extra-record

information.

2. From time to time, the Court may request Mr. Schulz to provide a formal written report on

technical advice concerning the case. A copy of the formal written report prepared by Mr. Schulz

shall be provided to the parties. However, the Court reserves the right to have informal verbal

communication with Mr. Schulz which are not included in any formal written report.

2. Mr. Schulz may attend any court proceedings.

3. Mr. Schulz may review any pleadings, motions or documents submitted to the Court. 

4. As a technical advisor, Mr. Schulz will make no written findings of fact and will not

supply any evidence to the Court. Thus, Mr. Schulz will be outside the purview of “expert

witnesses” under Fed. R. Evid. 706. As such, the provisions in Rule 706 for depositions and

questioning of expert witnesses will be inapplicable to Mr. Schulz. See Reilly, 863 F.2d at 155-156.

5. Mr. Schulz will have no contact with any of the parties or their counsel except for billing

purposes.

6. The parties are directed to pay the reasonable fees charged by Mr. Schulz for his service

as a technical advisor to the Court in this case. If the appointment is made, the parties shall confer to

determine an apportionment for purposes of payment of Mr. Schulz’s fees. All matters pertaining to

the fees of Mr. Schulz are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd.

7. Mr. Schulz shall file a declaration that he will adhere to the terms of his appointment. 

On for before March 19, 2007, any party to the litigation wishing to object to Mr. Schulz’s

appointment on any ground, shall file a Notice of Objection to Appointment of Technical Advisor. 

Case 5:04-cv-04143-JW Document 297 Filed 03/07/07 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

Among the grounds for objection, the Court specifically would wish to know of any objection based

on the following grounds: 

A. Bias on the part of Mr. Schulz;

B. Lack of funds to share the fees of the advisor on the part of the objecting party.

Any objection shall be lodged directly with Magistrate Judge Lloyd. The objection shall

state the grounds of objection and be accompanied by a supporting declaration and legal

memorandum supporting the objection. Judge Lloyd shall not advise Judge Ware of the identity of

any party making an objection. Judge Lloyd may confer with the parties to determine if any

modification of the terms of appointment would overcome the objection. Thereafter, Judge Lloyd

shall submit a recommendation to Judge Ware in accordance with paragraphs 1-7 or as modified, or

of non-appointment due to objections. Judge Ware shall determine whether to make the

appointment under any modified terms of appointment.

Dated: March 7, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-04143-JW Document 297 Filed 03/07/07 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Alexandra V. Percy apercy@hansonbridgett.com

Alka A. Patel patela@pepperlaw.com

Brandon D. Baum bbaum@mayerbrown.com

Christopher J Huber huberc@pepperlaw.com

Darren E. Donnelly ddonnelly@fenwick.com

David Eiseman davideiseman@quinnemanuel.com

David Douglas Schumann dschumann@fenwick.com

Dennis S Corgill dcorgill@mayerbrownrowe.com

Erik N. Videlock videlocke@pepperlaw.com

Ian N. Feinberg ifeinberg@mayerbrownrowe.com

J. David Hadden dhadden@fenwick.com

Jedediah Wakefield jwakefield@fenwick.com

Joshua M. Masur jmasur@mayerbrownrowe.com

Kathryn M. Kenyon kenyonk@pepperlaw.com

Laurence Z Shiekman shiekmanl@pepperlaw.com

Laurie Michelle Charrington lcharrington@gmail.com

Lynn H. Pasahow lpasahow@fenwick.com

Marshall C. Wallace mwallace@reedsmith.com

Martin F. Majestic Mmajestic@hansonbridgett.com

Michael A. Duncheon mduncheon@hansonbridgett.com

Michael A. Molano mmolano@mayerbrownrowe.com

Rachel Heather Smith rachelsmith@quinnemanuel.com

Roderick M. Thompson rthompson@fbm.com

Ryan Aftel Tyz rtyz@fenwick.com

Sangeetha M. Raghunathan sraghunathan@fbm.com

Stephen Roger Dartt sdartt@fenwick.com

W. Joseph Melnik melnikj@pepperlaw.com

Willard R. Burns burnsw@pepperlaw.com

William Paul Schuck wps@mjllp.com

Dated: March 7, 2007 Howard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-04143-JW Document 297 Filed 03/07/07 Page 5 of 5