Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04143/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04143-36/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

1 A "smart card" is a credit card with an embedded microprocessor chip purported to

increase security of the user's identifying information in e-commerce transactions. 

*E-filed 2/7/08*

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CRYPTOGRAPHY RESEARCH, INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

VISA INTERNATIONAL SERVICE

ASSOCIATION,

Defendant. /

Case No. C04-04143 JW (HRL)

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION

TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS 

Re: Docket Nos. 371 and 372 

Cryptography Research, Inc. ("CRI") sues Visa International Service Association

("Visa") for patent infringement, breach of contract, and misrepresentation. The patents-in-suit

pertain to measures that protect Visa “smart cards” from identity theft vulnerability.1

 Visa

moves to compel CRI to produce: (1) a further interrogatory response; (2) documents related to

a third party licensing agreement; and (3) inventor’s notebooks related to the patents-in-suit. 

Visa also seeks attorney's fees. 

I. Motion to Compel Further Contention Interrogatory Response 

Visa first wants a more detailed response to a contention interrogatory: Interrogatory

Number 21. It says that more specificity should be compelled because CRI has alleged that

Case 5:04-cv-04143-JW Document 429 Filed 02/07/08 Page 1 of 6
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

 By way of example, CRI should refer to its own illustration for two of the asserted

claims as related to Visa's dealings with a chip manufacturer. See Opp. Brief, pg. 9-10.

2

Visa infringed, either directly or indirectly, over 140 claims for eight different patents. The

sufficiency of CRI's response as it pertains to direct infringement is not in dispute. The

problem, according to Visa, is that CRI refuses to provide detailed descriptions for the factual

and legal bases underlying its claims of indirect infringement. This contention interrogatory is

important to Defendant because of the large number of infringement assertions which are based

on Visa's dealings with numerous member banks and other entities. 

CRI says that it has already provided the information sought by Visa. Plaintiff explains

that its response pointed to and incorporated prior discovery responses which contain the

information necessary for Visa to determine the basis for its assertions. This may or may not be

entirely accurate. In any event, the dispute is not over whether CRI has produced certain

information; rather, it is whether CRI should be compelled to provide a response which

harnesses the universe of facts and relates them to each claim of infringement. CRI cites

Caliper Techs. Corp. v. Molecular Devices Corp. in support, which says that an interrogatory

response need only give the information to the requesting party, not explain it. 213 F.R.D. 555,

557 (N.D. Cal. 2003). 

However, that case addresses a request for an explanation of the mechanics of a

technical process, not an explanation of how the facts relate to claims. This distinction is

important because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(2) notes that parties may be required

to set out their contentions relating "the application of the law to fact." In this case, where there

are so many claims and so many actors as to make it unwieldy and potentially unmanageable, it

is not unreasonable to require more from CRI. Visa's motion to compel a further interrogatory

response is GRANTED. By February 22, 2008, CRI should set out in one place and in an

organized, focused fashion, the which, when, where, what and how of its indirect

infringement claims.

2

 

Case 5:04-cv-04143-JW Document 429 Filed 02/07/08 Page 2 of 6
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

3 The third party licensee ("Doe Corporation") has satisfied the court that public

disclosure of its name in this case would be detrimental to it. The parties are aware of this

licensees' identity and do not object to this public redaction.

4 If the parties cannot reach an agreement, then each party shall file a proposal. The

court will choose the most even-handed one.

3

II. Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents

A) CRI's Third Party Licensing Agreement and Product Development Documents

Although the original production requests sought information about all third parties with

which CRI had agreements, Visa now only seeks those documents related to Plaintiff's license

of any patents or technology to Doe Corporation.3

 Request for Production of Documents No.'s

22 and 23. Pursuant to a subpoena on this same topic, Doe Corporation had previously

produced a few heavily redacted documents to Visa. From those documents, Defendant gleaned

two important pieces of information. First, that Doe Corporation does not mark its product with

CRI's technology, nor does the licensing agreement require it to do so. Second, the generalized

descriptions of how the licensed technology functions seems to implicate aspects of the

technology encompassed in the patents-in-suit. Visa argues that full production of these

documents should be compelled because they are relevant to its marking defense. 

It is currently unclear the extent to which the technology licensed to Doe Corporation

relates to the technology at issue in this case. But, there are sufficient similarities such that Visa

should have the opportunity to investigate it more thoroughly. CRI has not met its burden of

showing why discovery should not go forward on this relevant, non-privileged material. 

Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). The production shall include

both the functional documents and the actual "deliverables" such as source code information. 

Nevertheless, because the court is sensitive to Doe Corporation's privacy concerns, this

production may be subject to a more restrictive protective order than the one already in place. 

Accordingly, by February 22, 2008, the parties shall submit a joint proposed

supplemental protective order.

4

 The proposal should protect the interests of CRI and Doe

Corporation, but should not be so stringent as to hamstring Visa's practical ability to evaluate

and analyze the information for purposes of its defense. The parties are encouraged to refer to

Case 5:04-cv-04143-JW Document 429 Filed 02/07/08 Page 3 of 6
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

prior supplemental protective orders adopted in this case. Furthermore, the court is amenable to

imposing varying levels of protection for different types of material. Once a suitable

supplemental protective order has been signed, the court will provide a production timetable. 

B) All Relevant Inventor Notebooks Beginning in 1995

Visa sought from CRI "[a]ll documents or things relating to any laboratory or

engineering notes or notebooks of any inventors relating to any alleged inventions claimed" in

each of the eight patents-in-suit. Request for Production Nos. 152, 199, 246, 293, 357, 387,

434, and 481. In response, CRI produced seven inventor's notebooks. It says that it has

produced all notebooks relating to the patents-in-suit. See Tyz Decl., ¶ 43. Visa asserts that

more should have been produced. Thus, the question is whether or not CRI's interpretation of

relevant information responsive to the production request is unduly narrow. 

Visa inferred that responsive, relevant notebooks were being withheld based on the

relatively small number of notebooks produced and because of the content of the books. 

Defendant is suspicious that only seven notebooks relate to this invention, given the numerous

articles written by the inventors and the number of patents secured based on the invention. 

With respect to content, Visa points out that, chronologically, the first notebook produced was

dated November 13, 1997. This notebook was Paul Kocher's, the primary inventor of the

technology at issue. According to Defendant, this notebook contained a nearly fully formed and

fleshed out invention. Therefore, it follows that - unless the inventor had a sudden, unexpected,

unexplained flash of blinding insight - there would logically be earlier notebook entries

reflecting the germination of ideas and antecedent ruminations leading up to this invention.

There is more than the usual significance to the timing of the date of conception in this

case. During the same relative time frame in which the invention was or might have been

conceived, Kocher was also under (direct or indirect) contractual obligation to Visa. 

Accordingly, production of notebooks prior to Kocher's November 1997 "epiphany" are

relevant to Visa's defenses to CRI's contract claims, i.e., claims that Kocher breached

contractual duties to Visa or concealed information during his negotiations. 

Case 5:04-cv-04143-JW Document 429 Filed 02/07/08 Page 4 of 6
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

While the court does not necessarily question the sincerity of Plaintiff's assertion that

November 1997 was the date of conception, there are sufficiently unique circumstances to

require production of Kocher's notebooks from November 1997 back to January 1995. CRI

shall produce the notebooks by February 22, 2008. 

III. Attorney Fees

Visa requests that the court order CRI to pays its attorneys fees associated with bringing

this motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). However, Visa did not make a persuasive case for the

imposition of sanctions, nor did it file its motion for sanctions according to the Local Rules. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(a); Civil Local Rule 7-8. Accordingly, the request for attorney fees

is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/7/08 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-04143-JW Document 429 Filed 02/07/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE MAILED TO:

Brandon D. Baum bbaum@mayerbrown.com 

Laurie Michelle Charrington lcharrington@daycasebeer.com, gmitsuk@daycasebeer.com 

Dennis S Corgill dcorgill@gmail.com 

Stephen Roger Dartt sdartt@fenwick.com 

Joshua David Dick jdick@whitecase.com 

Darren E. Donnelly ddonnelly@fenwick.com, emancera@fenwick.com 

Michael A. Duncheon mduncheon@hansonbridgett.com, CalendarClerk@hansonbridgett.com,

mless@hansonbridgett.com 

Eric Evans eevans@mayerbrownrowe.com 

Ian N. Feinberg ifeinberg@mayerbrown.com, cpohorski@mayerbrownrowe.com,

ericevans@mayerbrownrowe.com 

Michael J. Gallagher mgallagher@whitecase.com, hmurdock@whitecase.com, mco@whitecase.com,

ogierke@whitecase.com 

J. David Hadden dhadden@fenwick.com 

William Joseph Healey invalidaddress@invalidaddress.com 

Mary Elaine Johnston mejohnston@whitecase.com 

Erin Catherine Jones ejones@fenwick.com 

Richard Elgar Lyon , III rlyon@irell.com, CMcEntee@irell.com, cwaters@irell.com, jgordon@irell.com,

mwilliams@irell.com, rick.lyon@gmail.com 

Martin Frank Majestic MMajestic@hansonbridgett.com, IPFilings@hansonbridgett.com 

Joshua Michael Masur jmasur@mayerbrown.com, ratie@mayerbrown.com 

W. Joseph Melnik jmelnik@mayerbrownrowe.com, jazevedojr@mayerbrown.com,

jwilkinson@mayerbrownrowe.com 

Michael A. Molano mmolano@mayerbrownrowe.com, cpohorski@mayerbrownrowe.com 

Lynn Harold Pasahow lpasahow@fenwick.com, tchow@fenwick.com 

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

rcarrillo@hansonbridgett.com, wchan@hansonbridgett.com 

William Paul Schuck wpschuck@schiffhardin.com, dwg@mjllp.com 

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

Saina Sason Shamilov sshamilov@fenwick.com, vschmitt@fenwick.com 

Roderick Manley Thompson rthompson@fbm.com, adugan@fbm.com, calendar@fbm.com 

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

Jedediah Wakefield jwakefield@fenwick.com, rjones@fenwick.com 

Marshall C. Wallace mwallace@reedsmith.com 

Howard Marc Wettan hwettan@whitecase.com 

Elizabeth S. Campbell 

3000 Two Logan Square

Eighteenth and Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799

Joseph Helmsen 

500 Grant Street, 50th Floor

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Rainer Schulz

511 Cuesta Drive

Los Altos, Ca 94024-4132

Counsel are responsible for transmitting this order to co-counsel who have not signed up for efiling.

Dated: 2/7/08 /s/ KRO 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:04-cv-04143-JW Document 429 Filed 02/07/08 Page 6 of 6