FENWICK 

&

WEST LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR 

INJUNCTION AND RELATED RELIEF

Case No. 08-cv-04577 VRW

DARRYL M. WOO (CSB No. 100513)

dwoo@fenwick.com

CHARLENE M. MORROW (CSB No. 136411)

cmorrow@fenwick.com

TYLER A. BAKER (CSB No. 65109)

tbaker@fenwick.com

FENWICK & WEST LLP

555 California Street, 12th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 875-2300

Facsimile: (415) 281-1350

Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants

INTERCEDE GROUP PLC and INTERCEDE LTD.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ACTIVIDENTITY CORPORATION, a 

Delaware Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERCEDE GROUP PLC AND 

INTERCEDE LTD., both of Lutterworth, 

UK,

Defendants.

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

Case No.: 3:08-cv-04577 VRW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER FOR INJUNCTION AND 

RELATED RELIEF

Judge: Hon. Bernard Zimmerman

Case 3:08-cv-04577-VRW Document 138 Filed 04/01/10 Page 1 of 7
FENWICK 

&

WEST LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR 

INJUNCTION AND RELATED RELIEF

- 1 - Case No. 08-cv-04577 VRW

Defendants and counterclaimants Intercede Group plc and Intercede Ltd. (collectively, 

“Intercede”), Plaintiff ActivIdentity Corporation (“ActivIdentity”), and Mr. Michael Neumann 

submit this stipulation and proposed order for a protective order for an injunction against Mr. 

Michael Neumann and related relief.

On October 6, 2009, Plaintiff ActivIdentity proposed Mr. Neumann as a consultant under 

Paragraph 10 of the Stipulated Protective Order (“Protective Order”) entered in this case (Doc # 

51 at 8) whereby he would obtain access to Intercede’s confidential information, including 

information designated as “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” and provided a 

undertaking signed by Mr. Neumann stating that he had read the Protective Order and agreed to 

be bound by all of the provisions thereof. 

Paragraph 9 of the Protective Order expressly prohibits an employee or independent 

contractor of a party from serving as a consultant and further prohibits retained consultants or 

experts from becoming an employee or independent contractor (which would include serving as a 

non-litigation consultant) for a party for a period of two years following the conclusion of this 

litigation.

On November 19, 2009, Intercede objected to the disclosure of Intercede’s confidential 

information to Mr. Neumann as permitted under the Protective Order.

On January 5, 2010, Mr. Neumann executed an agreement to directly serve as a nonlitigation consultant for ActivIdentity. ActivIdentity subsequently executed this same agreement 

on January 12, 2010.

On January 8, 2010, this Court conducted a discovery conference and granted Intercede 

leave to file a motion for protective order barring the disclosure of Intercede confidential 

information to Mr. Neumann under the terms of the Protective Order. At the same time, the 

Court ordered that Mr. Neumann could gain access to Intercede’s confidential information, 

including Intercede’s most sensitive information – its technical specifications and source code --

in the interim based on his agreement to be bound by the Protective Order and on the risk that if 

Intercede’s motion was granted, Mr. Neumann may be disqualified and enjoined from any use of 

Intercede’s confidential information to which he may have been exposed. Doc # 95. 

Case 3:08-cv-04577-VRW Document 138 Filed 04/01/10 Page 2 of 7
FENWICK 

&

WEST LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR 

INJUNCTION AND RELATED RELIEF

- 2 - Case No. 08-cv-04577 VRW

Following the discovery conference and the Court’s Order granting Mr. Neumann interim 

access to Intercede confidential information, counsel for ActivIdentity provided and 

Mr. Neumann received the following documents containing Intercede confidential information 

concerning the technical specifications of its products, bearing the following bates numbers, title 

and dates:

1. INT0003386 - 3393: Card Server (15 September 2005);

2. INT0003394 - 3401: Device Batch System (21 November 2002);

3. INT0003402 - 3419: Edefice Applet Management - Web Integration (06 August 

2002);

4. INT0003420 - 3428: IssueCard Key-Management Behaviour (21 November 

2002);

5. INT0003429 - 3446: Key Ceremony HSM (21 November 2002);

6. INT0003447 - 3459: Open Platform card integration (8 July 2003);

7. INT0003460 - 3501: OpenPlatform SmartCard (06 March 2003); and

8. INT0003502 - 3516: Applet Management (20 October 2006)

On January 15, 2010, Intercede filed its motion for protective order barring the disclosure 

of Intercede confidential information to Mr. Michael Neumann. Doc # 97.

On January 20, 2010, the day that ActivIdentity’s opposition to Intercede’s motion for 

protective order was due, counsel for ActivIdentity sent a letter to Intercede which stated:

“ActivIdentity has reconsidered Intercede’s objections to Mr. Neumann’s 

disclosure and has elected to withdraw Mr. Neumann as a proposed consultant 

requiring access to Intercede’s confidential information. Mr. Neumann will, of 

course, continue to be bound by the terms of the Protective Order, as stated in his 

undertaking.” 

On January 21, 2010, ActivIdentity filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion for 

protective order, disclosing for the first time that ActivIdentity had retained Mr. Neumann 

directly as a non-litigation consultant separate and apart from, and in addition to his proposed 

duties as an expert or consultant in the litigation. Doc # 104.

On January 22, 2010, Intercede filed a reply to ActivIdentity’s statement of nonCase 3:08-cv-04577-VRW Document 138 Filed 04/01/10 Page 3 of 7
FENWICK 

&

WEST LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR 

INJUNCTION AND RELATED RELIEF

- 3 - Case No. 08-cv-04577 VRW

opposition which requested that the Court grant the pending motion for protective order and order 

further necessary relief in light of the newly disclosed facts.

On January 25, 2010, ActivIdentity filed a motion to strike, or in the alternative, for leave 

to file an opposition brief to Intercede’s request for sanctions and a finding of contempt in its 

reply brief.

On February 1, 2010, the Court issued an Order (Doc # 122): (1) granting Intercede’s 

motion for protective order (Doc # 97) as unopposed; (2) denying without prejudice Intercede’s 

motion for sanctions and contempt (Doc # 108), specifically stating that “[i]f defendants wish, 

they may re-file a properly noticed motion in compliance with the Civil Local Rules; and (3) 

denying ActivIdentity’s motion to strike (Doc # 110) as moot.

Accordingly, the parties and Mr. Neumann hereby stipulate and request the Court order as 

follows:

1. Mr. Neumann is hereby enjoined from making any use of or disclosing any 

Intercede confidential information disclosed to him under Protective Order and the Court’s Order. 

2. Mr. Neumann has identified to Intercede in writing and under penalty of perjury, 

in Exhibit A, attached: 

a. an approximate date of when such confidential information was made 

available to him; 

b. when Mr. Neumann and ActivIdentity first entered into discussions 

regarding non-litigation consulting services; 

c. the nature, scope, and subject matter of Mr. Neumann’s new consulting 

work for ActivIdentity; and

d. when Mr. Neumann informed Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati that he 

was in direct contact with ActivIdentity, which included discussions 

regarding and/or an agreement to provide non-litigation consulting 

services.

3. Mr. Neumann has confirmed in writing and under penalty of perjury, in Exhibit A, 

attached, that: 

a. he has read and understood the Protective Order, the Court’s Order, and 

this Order and agrees to abide by them;

b. he has destroyed all copies of Intercede confidential information and any 

notes regarding this confidential information;

Case 3:08-cv-04577-VRW Document 138 Filed 04/01/10 Page 4 of 7
Case 3:08-cv-04577-VRW Document 138 Filed 04/01/10 Page 5 of 7
April 1, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-04577-VRW Document 138 Filed 04/01/10 Page 6 of 7
FENWICK 

&

WEST LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR 

INJUNCTION AND RELATED RELIEF

- 5 - Case No. 08-cv-04577 VRW

Dated: March __, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

MICHAEL NEUMANN

By: _____________________________________

 Michael Neumann

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, AND GOOD CAUSE SHOWING, IT IS SO 

ORDERED.

Dated: 

The Honorable Bernard Zimmerman

United States District Court Magistrate Judge

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

I hereby attest that I have received Julie M. Holloway’s concurrence in the e-filing of this 

document as indicated by the “conformed” signature (s/) above.

By: /s/ Joseph S. Belichick

Joseph S. Belichick

Case 3:08-cv-04577-VRW Document 138 Filed 04/01/10 Page 7 of 7