Free Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. CREO, INC., NEXPRESS SOLUTIONS, INC., KODAK VERSAMARK, INC., EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, and KODAK GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 06-032 (JJF)

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF'S EXPERTS FROM ACCESSING DESIGNATED INFORMATION AND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT DR. CHRISTOPHER VELLTURO 1. Plaintiff R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company ("RRD") hereby opposes

Defendants' "Motion To Preclude Plaintiff's Experts From Accessing Designated Information" (D.I. 188) and Defendants' "Motion To Disqualify Plaintiff's Expert Dr. Christopher Vellturo" (D.I. 202). 2. Defendants seek to disqualify Dr. Christopher Vellturo from being an

expert for RRD and seek to preclude Mr. Frank Braswell from receiving designated information. Dr. Vellturo 3. R.R. Donnelley has sought the services of Dr. Christopher Vellturo, an

economic consultant, to assist R.R. Donnelley in preparing its patent damages case. 4. Although Defendants first filed a motion to preclude Dr. Vellturo from

receiving access to Kodak's "designated information" (D.I. 188), Defendants did not argue that Dr. Vellturo should be precluded from receiving confidential information. Indeed, Defendants admit to having provided Dr. Vellturo with confidential information themselves. Instead,

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 2 of 12

Defendants seek to disqualify Dr. Vellturo based on his work for Kodak in an unrelated case involving different parties and different technology. Defendants then filed another motion

(D.I. 202), in which they make the same arguments as in their first motion. RRD will respond to both motions here. 5. Defendants seek to disqualify Dr. Vellturo from ever being adverse to

Kodak. Defendants argue that Dr. Vellturo should be forever barred from being adverse to Kodak based on his and his firm's work as an expert for Kodak in unrelated and now completed litigation (the "Sony Litigation"). (See D.I. 202 at 2-4.) Defendants admit that the Sony Litigation ended in January 2007. Id. at 4. Defendants also admit that the Sony Litigation involved different products and different technology from what is at issue here. Id. at 2-4. The three apparently related cases in the Sony Litigation involved "cameras and photofinishing products, printer dock products, medical imaging printing technology, and laser printer technology." Id. at 3.1 6. Defendants' entire argument relies on Koch Ref. Co. v. Jennifer L.

Boudreaux M/V, 85 F.3d 1178, 1181 (5th Cir. 1996), which cites a common test for disqualifying an expert: "First, was it objectively reasonable for the first party who claims to have retained the expert to conclude that a confidential relationship existed? Second, was any confidential or privileged information disclosed by the first party to the expert?" Id. 7. The Koch case, however, involved a different factual situation than is

present here. In Koch, the expert in question had consulted previously on the matters at issue in that case. See Koch, 85 F.3d at 1181. Although the expert did not switch sides, the party who

1

Defendants characterize the Sony Litigation as "three separate litigations" (D.I. 202 at 6), even though, based on Defendants' description, the three cases appear to be related litigation in two separate courts. 2

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 3 of 12

hired the expert did. Id. An insurance company first retained the expert in its insurance dispute with the owners and charterers of a sunken barge. After the insurance dispute settled, the insurance company joined forces with the owners and charterers. Meanwhile, another group, the tug interests, hired the expert to help with its case involving the same sunken barge. Id. 8. Here, by Kodak's own admission, Dr. Vellturo's work involved a different

matter and different technology. (D.I. 202 at 2-4.) This case involves digital printing presses and software used with them. In particular, this case involves the products of several companies that Kodak has purchased, including NexPress, Creo, and Versamark. The earlier Sony

Litigation, on the other hand, involved consumer and medical equipment, including digital cameras and related peripherals. (D.I. 202 at 3.) The Sony Litigation did not involve the digital printing business units involved in this case. 9. In such circumstances, there is no disqualification. In Syngenta Seeds,

Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 2004 WL 2223252, *4 (D. Del. 2004), Judge Robinson denied a disqualification motion, in part, because the moving party did not "identify specific confidential information defendant gave to Dr. Lee or explain how this information relates to the present matter." Id. at *3 (emphasis added). 10. Other courts have ruled similarly on disqualification motions based on

prior work on unrelated litigation. See, e.g., Hewlett-Packard Co. v. EMC Corp., 330 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1092-93 (N.D. Cal. 2004); U.S ex rel. Cherry Hill Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Healthcare Rehab Sys., Inc., 994 F. Supp. 244, 251 (D.N.J. 1997). Indeed, the "rule" that Defendants cite (D.I. 202 at 5) has been rephrased to distinguish the situation in this case: "disqualification of an expert is warranted based on a prior relationship with an adversary if (1) the adversary had a confidential relationship with the expert and (2) the adversary disclosed

3

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 4 of 12

confidential information to the expert that is relevant to the current litigation."

Hewlett-

Packard, 330 F. Supp. 2d at 1092-93 (emphasis added). It is "necessary to make a distinction between confidential business and financial records and confidential communications related to a particular litigation. The court accepts the argument that [the expert] must have been privy to business and financial information of HRS, such as billing and reimbursement data, which it had a legal and professional duty to keep confidential and which may be relevant to this litigation." U.S ex rel. Cherry Hill, 994 F. Supp. at 251 (emphasis added). 11. Defendants brush past the requirement that the prior relationship with the

expert have some relevancy to the current case. Instead, Defendants argue that "[i]t is nearly impossible to imagine a scenario where Vellturo, Almeida, and QES -- as a result of their confidential relationship with Kodak and its legal staff -- would not gain knowledge of Kodak's `modus operandi, patterns of operations, decision-making process, and the like,' all of which would be highly relevant to this litigation." (D.I. 202 at 6.) Defendants fail to identify, however, any confidential information or knowledge that Dr. Vellturo or his colleagues may have gained in the Sony Litigation case that relates to this case. See Syngenta Seeds, 2004 WL 2223252, at *3. 12. Indeed, Defendants misquote Koch when they state that confidential

information such as Kodak's "modus operandi, patterns of operations, decision-making process, and the like" can serve as a basis for disqualifying Dr. Vellturo. (D.I. 202 at 6.) Koch notes that knowledge of a party's "modus operandi, patterns of operations, decision-making process, and the like" is a concern only for a "longstanding series of interactions." Koch, 85 F.3d at 1182. Other courts have similarly limited this concern to a "longstanding series of interactions."

4

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 5 of 12

Hewlett-Packard, 330 F. Supp. 2d at 1093;

Syngenta Seeds, 2004 WL 2223252, at *2.

Defendants do not claim a "longstanding series of interactions" with Dr. Vellturo. 13. Defendants do not and cannot show that the substance of Dr. Vellturo's

prior work for Kodak has any relation to this matter. Instead, Defendants seek to impose a poisoned chalice rule, where any expert who has worked for Kodak can never thereafter work for a party adverse to Kodak. 14. Indeed, Defendants seek to disqualify Dr. Vellturo using a stricter standard

than applies to attorneys, even though experts are held to a lower standard than attorneys. See U.S ex rel. Cherry Hill, 994 F. Supp. at 249 ("Application of the same standard in both cases is not appropriate because experts and attorneys assume different roles in litigation. Experts act as sources of information and opinions in order to assist parties and triers of facts to understand evidence. Attorneys act as advocates of their client's positions and, thus, owe a higher level of fiduciary duty to the client than do experts.") (internal citations omitted). 15. "The Delaware Lawyers' Rules Of Professional Conduct" would allow

Kodak's attorneys in the Sony Litigation to be adverse to Defendants here. Rule 1.9 restricts an attorney from being adverse to an ex-client only with regard to the "same or a substantially related matter" to the attorney's representation of that ex-client. Ex. A, Rule 1.9. Certainly, an attorney has a least as much, and likely far more, general knowledge of an ex-client's "modus operandi, patterns of operations, decision-making process, and the like" than an expert in an unrelated matter, such as Dr. Vellturo. Defendants cannot hold Dr. Vellturo to a stricter standard than even governs attorneys.

5

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 6 of 12

16.

Defendants also impugn Dr. Vellturo's integrity. Defendants argue that

"the motivation behind QES's present listing of Kodak as a `Selected Client' is unclear. Most small consulting companies, such as QES, list brand name companies like Kodak to elevate their overall stature and to legitimize their operations. But here, by listing of Kodak on QES's website, Vellturo is essentially offering his inner knowledge of Kodak's operations to any Kodak adversary willing to pay his fees. The Court should not condone such behavior." (D.I. 202 at 7.) Defendants have no basis for such wild accusations. 17. Defendants' own expert's (Dr. Sims) firm, CRA International, similarly

lists prior clients, presumably also to show their "overall stature and to legitimize their operations." Attached as Exhibit B is CRA International's "Intellectual Property Consulting" brochure, obtained from CRA International's website

(http://www.crai.com/category.asp?typeid=7&parentid=54). The background (on pages 3 and 8) lists myriad law firms and companies who are prior clients of that company.2 Presumably,

2

On page 8, CRA International lists (with commas added): "Procter & Gamble Company, KPMG LLP, Telecom New Zealand Limited, Canadian Ministry of Energy, Clifford Chance LLP, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Proskauer Rose LLP, American Chemical Society, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, State of Oregon, Public Utilities Commission (PUC), New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc., Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., McLeodUSA Incorporated, Ernst & Young LLP, Universal Studios, Motorola Incorporated, FirstMark Communications Europe S.A., Kerr-McGee Corporation, Polaroid Corporation, The World Bank, Research In Motion Limited, Clausen Miller P.C., Irell & Manella LLP, California High-Speed Rail Authority, Societe Generale de Financement du Quebec (SGF), TAP Pharmaceutical Products Inc., Keker & Van Nest LLP, McMillan Binch Mendelsohn LLP, Scott Paper Company, Bacardi-Martini Ltd., Foley & Lardner LLP, Great Western Chemical Company, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Northeastern University, KNBC, Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P., Jenkins & Gilchrist, a Professional Corporation, Heller Ehrman LLP, Shell Oil Company, Reserve Bank of Australia, Boeing Company, Texaco, Inc., Star Tribune, WeirFoulds LLP, Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP, Ciba-Geigy Corporation, Resources for the Future, Sprint Nextel, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Ontario Ministry of Finance, W.R. Grace & Company, Bromberg & Sunstein LLP, Schwartz, Cooper, Greenberger & Krauss, Chartered, Chevron Corporation, American Automobile 6

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 7 of 12

Defendants do not believe that their own expert is offering his "inner knowledge of [these companies'] operations to any [] adversary willing to pay his fees."

Manufacturers Association, British Horseracing Board, CAJUN Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Coors Brewing Company, Compaq Computer Corporation, United Airlines, Inc., Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, US Department of Transportation, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Metropolitan West Securities, Inc., CSX Corporation, Perkins Coie, Brown & Bain P.A., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CitiPower, Medtronic, Inc., Japan-US Cable Network, Intel Corporation, Albertson's, Inc., Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, The Childrens Mercy Hospital, American Home Products Corporation, Comisión Federal de Telecomunicaciones, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Amgen, Inc., Lotus Development Corporation, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., Jefferson Smurfit Corporation, Metallgesellschaft Corporation, Paramount Communications, Power Pool of Alberta, Nokia Corporation, Montedison S.p.A., United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP, Delhaize Le Lion, Baker Botts L.L.P., Sutts, Strosberg LLP, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Volvo Car Corporation, PRIMESTAR, Reynolds Metal Company, Telecom-Empresa Nacional de Telecommunicaciones, Thompson Hine LLP, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, NOVA Chemicals Corporation, Eli Lilly and Company, Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, El Taller Colaborativo, PC, Amway Corporation, Miller Brewing Company, Williams & Connolly LLP, City of Chicago, Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP, Tropicana Petris Technology, Inc., ABC, Inc., Katten Muchin & Rosenman LLP, Time Warner Inc., Constantine Cannon, P.C., CNA Financial Corporation, Toshiba Corporation, Federal Trade Commission, LTD Financial Services, L.P., Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, Indianapolis Power & Light Company, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Elf Antar France, Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, American Standard Companies, Inc., Thelen Reid & Priest LLP, Saab AB, Con Edison Energy, Quaker State Corporation, Tasmania Magnesite NL, Bausch & Lomb Inc., Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, Sealy Hoyts Cinemas LTD., Enterprise Canada Gas Research Institute, Hunton & Williams LLP, Pitney Bowes Inc., Mt. Sinai Medical Center, National Basketball Association, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Gardner Carton & Douglas LLP, Caterpillar Inc., Affleck Greene Orr LLP, Freeborn & Peters LLP, Monsanto Company, Ashland Inc., Bickel & Brewer, PepsiCo, Inc., Quarles & Brady LLP, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Ericsson Inc., Omnitel Pronto Italia S.p.A., Ford Motor Company, Briggs & Stratton Corporation, American Iron and Steel Institute, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Sprint Corporation, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc., Bechtel Group, Inc., Welsh & Katz, Ltd., Sunoco Inc., PEPSICO, INC., Allied Van Lines, Inc., Sprint PCS, Purdue University, New York State Attorney General, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), [and] AgrEvo." 7

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 8 of 12

18.

Defendants forget that "disqualification is `a drastic measure which courts Syngenta Seeds, 2004 WL

should hesitate to impose except when absolutely necessary.'"

2223252, at *1. Defendants have not satisfied their burden of showing that Dr. Vellturo should be disqualified. Mr. Braswell 19. R.R. Donnelley has sought the services of Mr. Frank Braswell, a

consultant for the print industry, to assist R.R. Donnelley in preparing its infringement case against Defendants. 20. Defendants also seek to preclude Mr. Braswell from reviewing documents

marked Confidential or Attorneys' Eyes Only. But Defendants' arguments go too far and would bar any expert with an actual business from qualifying under the Protective Order. 21. Defendants speculate that Mr. Braswell might make "use of Designated

Information -- either inadvertent or advertent -- to assist third parties [that] would not be traceable by Defendants." (D.I. 188 at 2.) Defendants have no reason to believe, however, that Mr. Braswell will violate the Protective Order. The only argument that Defendants make is that any violation "would not be traceable by Defendants." (Id. at 2.) That concern, however, is nearly always present and cannot support Defendants' attempt to bar RRD's preferred expert. Presumably, anyone intending to violate a Protective Order would do so seeking not to be discovered. Moreover, a potential that a Protective Order violation would not be discovered is no reason to bar Mr. Braswell when there is no reason to believe that he would violate the Protective Order. 22. Defendants complain that "Braswell and his firm, SMI, are apparently

actively engaged in the development of VDP applications for third parties, including companies

8

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 9 of 12

capable of developing products, or components of products, that compete with Defendants in the VDP field." (D.I. 188 at 8.) Obviously, an expert has to be knowledgeable about the technology at issue in a case. Any expert with a business outside of being a litigation expert will likely work on projects relating to technology similar to that in an adverse party's products. Defendants' argument would bar any expert who is not solely a litigation expert. 23. Section 9 of the Protective Order limits the use of Attorneys' Eyes Only or

Confidential Information to this action, and states that this information "shall not be used by such ... persons ... for any business or other purpose...." Defendants provide no reason to believe that Mr. Braswell will use any information he receives inappropriately. 24. Indeed, Defendants' technical expert, Mr. Weger, also has a business

relating to the technology at issue in this case. Mr. Weger's company, Elara Systems, provides publishing systems and applications for the graphic arts industry, including designers, publishers, and printers. See Ex. C, Weger CV, attached to letter from N. Grow to J. Secord of July 9, 2007. Mr. Weger could similarly ignore the Protective Order and use RRD's documents to develop products. 25. Defendants also make wild accusations about Mr. Braswell. According to

Defendants, "Braswell's firm also prides itself on cracking open the intellectual property of other companies. In particular, SMI has worked on at least one project where it `decrypt[ed]' a proprietary file format of a third-party company." (D.I. 188 at 8.) In reality, Mr. Braswell's firm expanded the functionality of a "proprietary file format" "to perform custom color processing of the images." Ex. D, http://www.systemsofmerritt.com/projects.shtml. Helping a client perform "custom color processing of images" by legally reverse-engineering a file format should not bar Mr. Braswell from receiving confidential material in this case.

9

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 10 of 12

26.

Defendants also mention their offer of a compromise on this issue. (D.I.

188 at 9.) Defendants offer, however, was for "Mr. Braswell not [to] work on any variable digital printing-related projects both during the pendency of this litigation, as well as for a finite period of time after the conclusion of the litigation." Ex. E, Letter from B. Koide to A. Hein of Aug. 9, 2007. Defendants are asking Mr. Braswell to agree not to work in his area of expertise for years. That is not an acceptable solution to Defendants' objections to Mr. Braswell,

especially given their speculative nature. CONCLUSION 27. Defendants' motion to disqualify Dr. Vellturo should be denied. His prior

work for Kodak did not relate to any of the matters at issue in this case. Defendants' motion to preclude Mr. Braswell from accessing designated information should also be denied. Defendants' allegations that Mr. Braswell might misuse designated information are speculative at best. MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP /s/ Rodger D. Smith II (#3778) Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) Rodger D. Smith II (#3778) 1201 North Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 658-9200 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company OF COUNSEL: John G. Hutchinson SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10019 (212) 839-5398

10

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 11 of 12

Douglas I. Lewis Jamie L. Secord SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 853-7000 September 4, 2007
1226086

11

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 12 of 12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on September 4, 2007, he caused the foregoing to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing(s) to the following: Frederick L. Cottrell III Richards Layton & Finger, P.A. I also certify that copies were caused to be served on September 4, 2007, upon the following in the manner indicated: BY EMAIL AND BY HAND Frederick L. Cottrell III Richards Layton & Finger, P.A. One Rodney Square 920 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 [email protected] BY EMAIL Richard McMillan, Jr. Crowell & Moring LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2595 [email protected] /s/ Rodger D. Smith II (#3778) Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 658-9200 [email protected]

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 1 of 30

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 2 of 30

THE DELAWARE LAWYERS' RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Preamble: A lawyer's responsibilities Rule 1.0 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7. 1.8. Rule 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. 5.7. 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5. 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 7.5. 7.6. Truthfulness in statements to others Communication with person represented by counsel Dealing with unrepresented person Respect for rights of third persons Responsibilities of partners, managers, and supervisory lawyers Responsibilities of a subordinate lawyer Responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistants Professional independence of a lawyer Unauthorized practice of law; multijurisdictional practice of law Restrictions on right to practice Responsibilities regarding law-related services Voluntary pro bono publico service Accepting appointments Membership in legal services organization Law reform activities affecting client interests Non-profit and court-annexed limited legal-service programs Communications concerning a lawyer's services Advertising Direct contact with prospective clients Communication of fields of practice and specialization Firm names and letterheads Political contributions to obtain government legal engagements or appointments by judges Bar admission and disciplinary matters Judicial and legal officials Reporting professional misconduct Misconduct Disciplinary authority; choice of law

Terminology Competence Scope of representation Diligence Communication Fees Confidentiality of information Conflict of interest: Current clients Conflict of interest: Current clients: Specific rules 1.9. Duties to former clients 1.10. Imputation of conflicts of interest: General rule 1.11. Special conflicts of interest for former and current government officers and employees 1.12. Former judge, arbitrator, mediator or other third-party neutral 1.13. Organization as client 1.14. Client with diminished capacity 1.15. Safekeeping property 1.15A. Trust account overdraft notification 1.16. Declining or terminating representation 1.17. Sale of law practice 1.18. Duties to prospective client 2.1. Advisor 2.2. Intermediary (Deleted) 2.3. Evaluation for use by third persons 2.4. Lawyer serving as third-party neutral 3.1. Meritorious claims and contentions 3.2. Expediting litigation 3.3. Candor toward the tribunal 3.4. Fairness to opposing party and counsel 3.5. Impartiality and decorum of the tribunal 3.6. Trial publicity 3.7. Lawyer as witness 3.8. Special responsibilities of a prosecutor 3.9. Advocate in nonadjudicative proceedings 3.10. Communication with or investigation of jurors (Deleted)

8.1. 8.2. 8.3. 8.4. 8.5.

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 3 of 30

RULE 1.9 DUTIES TO FORMER CLIENTS (a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the s ame or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. (b) A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously represented a client (1) whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and

(2) about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter; unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. (c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter: (1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information has become generally known; or (2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client. Comment [1] After termination of a client- lawyer relationship, a lawyer has certain continuing duties with respect to confidentiality and conflicts of interest and thus may not represent another client except in conformity with this Rule. Under this Rule, for example, a lawyer could not properly seek to rescind on behalf of a new client a contract drafted on beha lf of the former client. So also a lawyer who has prosecuted an accused person could not properly represent the accused in a subsequent civil action against the government concerning the same transaction. Nor could a lawyer who has represented multiple clients in a matter represent one of the clients against the others in the same or a substantially related matter after a dispute arose among the clients in that matter, unless all affected clients give informed consent. See Comment [9]. Current and former government lawyers must comply with this Rule to the extent required by Rule 1.11. [2] The scope of a "matter" for purposes of this Rule depends on the facts of a particular situation or transaction. The lawyer's involvement in a matter can also be a question of degree. When a lawyer has been directly involved in a specific transaction, subsequent representation of other clients with materially adverse interests in that

49

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 4 of 30

transaction clearly is prohibited. On the other hand, a lawyer who recurrently handled a type of problem for a former client is not precluded from later representing another client in a factually distinct problem of that type even though the subsequent representation involves a position adverse to the prior client. Similar considerations can apply to the reassignment of military lawyers between defense and prosecution functions within the same military jurisdictions. The underlying question is whether the lawyer was so involved in the matter that the subsequent representation can be justly regarded as a changing of sides in the matter in question. [3] Matters are "substantially related" for purposes of this Rule if they involve the same transaction or legal dispute or if there otherwise is a substantial risk that confidential factual informatio n as would normally have been obtained in the prior representation would materially advance the client's position in the subsequent matter. For example, a lawyer who has represented a businessperson and learned extensive private financial information about that person may not then represent that person's spouse in seeking a divorce. Similarly, a lawyer who has previously represented a client in securing environmental permits to build a shopping center would be precluded from representing neighbors seeking to oppose rezoning of the property on the basis of environmental considerations; however, the lawyer would not be precluded, on the grounds of substantial relationship, from defending a tenant of the completed shopping center in resisting eviction for nonpayment of rent. Information that has been disclosed to the public or to other parties adverse to the former client ordinarily will not be disqualifying. Information acquired in a prior representation may have been rendered obsolete by the passage of time, a circumstance that may be relevant in determining whether two representations are substantially related. In the case of an organizational client, general knowledge of the client's policies and practices ordinarily will not preclude a subsequent representation; on the other hand, knowledge of specific facts gained in a prior representation that are relevant to the matter in question ordinarily will preclude such a representation. A former client is not required to reveal the confidential information learned by the lawyer in order to establish a substantial risk that the lawyer has confidential information to use in the subsequent matter. A conclusion about the possession of such information may be based on the nature of the services the lawyer provided the fo rmer client and information that would in ordinary practice be learned by a lawyer providing such services. Lawyers Moving Between Firms [4] When lawyers have been associated within a firm but then end their association, the question of whether a lawyer should undertake representation is more complicated. There are several competing considerations. First, the client previously represented by the former firm must be reasonably assured that the principle of loyalty to the client is not compromised. Second, the rule should not be so broadly cast as to preclude other persons from having reasonable choice of legal counsel. Third, the rule should not unreasonably hamper lawyers from forming new associations and taking on new clients after having left a previous association. In this connection, it should be recognized that today many lawyers practice in firms, that many lawyers to some degree

50

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 5 of 30

limit their practice to one field or another, and that many move from one association to another several times in their careers. If the concept of imputation were applied with unqualified rigor, the result would be radical curtailment of the opportunity of lawyers to move from one practice setting to another and of the opportunity of clients to change counsel. [5] Paragraph ( operates to disqualify the lawyer only when the lawyer b) involved has actual knowledge of information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c). Thus, if a lawyer while with one firm acquired no knowledge or information relating to a particular client of the firm, and that lawyer later joined another firm, neither the lawyer individually nor the second firm is disqualified from representing another client in the same or a related matter even though the interests of the two clients conflict. See Rule 1.10(b) for the restrictions on a firm once a lawyer has terminated association with the firm. [6] Application of paragraph (b) depends on a situation's particular facts, aided by inferences, deductions or working presumptions that reasonably may be made about the way in which lawyers work together. A lawyer may have general access to files of all clients of a law firm and may regularly participate in discussions of their affairs; it should be inferred that such a lawyer in fact is privy to all information about all the firm's clients. In contrast, another lawyer may have access to the files of only a limited number of clients and participate in discussions of the affairs of no other clients; in the absence of information to the contrary, it should be inferred that such a lawyer in fact is privy to information about the clients actually served but not those of other clients. In such an inquiry, the burden of proof should rest upon the firm whose disqualification is sought. [7] Independent of the question of disqualification of a firm, a lawyer changing professional association has a continuing duty to preserve confidentiality of information about a client formerly represented. See Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c). [8] Paragraph (c) provides that information acquired by the lawyer in the course of representing a client may not subsequently be used or revealed by the lawyer to the disadvantage of the client. However, the fact that a lawyer has once served a client does not preclude the lawyer from using generally known information about that client when later representing another client. [9] The provisions of this Rule are for the protection of former clients and can be waived if the client gives informed consent, which consent must be confirmed in writing under paragraphs (a) and (b). See Rule 1.0(e). With regard to the effectiveness of an advance waiver, see Comment [22] to Rule 1.7. With regard to disqualification of a firm with which a lawyer is or was formerly associated, see Rule 1.10.

51

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 6 of 30

EXHIBIT B

Intellectual Property Consulting
The Right Decision Matters.

PATENT INFRINGEMENT DAMAGES PATENT, TRADE SECRET, AND TECHNOLOGY VALUATION COPYRIGHT DAMAGES CONTRACT DISPUTES

Case Study: To help a large manufacturing and services company extract value from its patent portfolio, CRA identified patents that had significant potential value outside of the client's core business. After identifying the relevant patents, CRA conducted a valuation of the patent portfolio that included a competitive assessment of other patents in the same technology areas. CRA then identified potential acquirers of the patents, created marketing presentations, and led negotiations on the client's behalf. The client was ultimately able to sell the patent portfolio to a strategic buyer for $24 million.

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Sony Pictures Entertainment Proskauer Rose LLP American Chemical Society Michael Best & Friedrich LLP State of

Oregon Public Utilities Commission (PUC) New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. McLeodUSA Incorporated Ernst & Young Universal Studios Motorola Incorporated FirstMark Communications Europe S.A. Kerr-McGee Corporation Polaroid Corporation

LLP

The World Bank

Research In Motion Limited Clausen Miller P.C. Irell & Manella LLP California High-Speed Rail Authority Societe Generale de Financement du Quebec (SGF)

TAP Pharmaceutical Products Inc. Keker & Van Nest LLP McMillan Binch Mendelsohn LLP Scott Paper Company Bacardi-Martini Ltd. Foley & Lardner LLP

Great Western Chemical Company Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Northeastern University KNBC Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P. Jenkins & Gilchrist

a Professional Corporation Heller Ehrman LLP Shell Oil Company Reserve Bank of Australia Boeing Company Texaco, Inc. Star Tribune WeirFoulds LLP

Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP Ciba-Geigy Corporation Resources for the Future Sprint Nextel

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. Ontario Ministry of Finance W.R

Grace & Company Bromberg & Sunstein LLP Schwartz, Cooper, Greenberger & Krauss, Chartered Chevron Corporation American Automobile Manufacturers

Association British Horseracing Board CAJUN Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company Coors Brewing Company Compaq Computer

Corporation United Airlnes, Inc. Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP US Department of Transportation Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. Metropolitan West

Finding solutions to complex problems
CRA International is the world's premier economic consulting firm dedicated to helping organizations address their most critical IP-related issues. Businesses engage CRA to help them shape corporate IP strategy and assess the value drivers behind key transactions. Litigators rely on CRA to value the economic harm resulting from infringement or misappropriation of intellectual property assets. In both types of assignments we are able to apply the same rare combination of talents: deep industry specialization, broad functional experience that crosses sector boundaries, and proven analytical approaches. Whether you face a high-stakes legal proceeding or crucial business strategy decision, you can rely on us for clear, objective answers based on hard facts and rigorous analysis. That's why CRA is the partner of choice when the right decision matters.

Securities, Inc.

CSX Corporation

Perkins Coie Brown & Bain P.A.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

CitiPower

Medtronic, Inc.

Japan-US Cable

Network Intel Corporation Albertson's, Inc. Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP The Childrens Mercy Hospital American Home Products Corporation Comisión Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Amgen, Inc. Lotus Development Corporation Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

Federal de Telecomunicaciones

Jefferson

Smurfit Corporation Metallgesellschaft Corporation KPMG LLP Paramount Communications Power Pool of Alberta Nokia Corporation Montedison S.p.A Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP Delhaize Le Lion Baker Botts L.L.P. Sutts, Strosberg LLP

United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS)

Corporation for

Public Broadcasting Volvo Car Corporation PRIMESTAR Reynolds Metal Company Telecom-Empresa Nacional de Telecommunicaciones Thompson Hine LLP

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP NOVA Chemicals Corporation Eli Lilly and Company Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation El Taller Colaborativo, PC Amway Miller Brewing Company Williams & Connolly LLP City of Chicago Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP CNA Financial Corporation Tropicana

Corporation

Petris Technology

Inc.

ABC, Inc.

Katten Muchin & Rosenman LLP

Time Warner Inc.

Constantine Cannon, P.C.

Toshiba Corporation

Federa

Trade Commission LTD Financial Services, L.P. Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery Indianapolis Power & Light Company Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

Elf Antar France Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd. Seyfarth Shaw LLP American Standard Companies, Inc. Thelen Reid & Priest LLP Saab AB

Con Edison

09-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 10 of 30

Hard Facts. Clear Focus.

TRADE SECRET DAMAGES COMPETITOR BENCHMARKING LANHAM ACT TRADEMARK AND BRAND VALUATION TRANSFER PRICING

It's our job to bring clarity to your most complex issues. Our insight comes from a unique combination of talents. We offer you highly specialized experience in virtually every aspect of intellectual property, a broad range of functional skills that span the spectrum of IP issues, and the most rigorous economic and financial analysis in the business.

Deep industry experience
At CRA, you work with consultants who have years of experience addressing IP issues. Our IP professionals are experts in intellectual property and also have hands-on project experience across literally dozens of industries, including everything from consumer products to biotechnology. We've authored numerous articles on topics ranging from the cost of "bad" patents to innovative approaches to confronting the online piracy of entertainment assets. Our IP specialists also draw from a large, diverse staff of professionals across CRA, who have worked with industry-leading companies for which patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets represent key corporate assets. As a result, we offer clients a deep and nuanced understanding of IP strategies, valuation methodologies, and transactions employed within specific industry contexts.

litigation matters, which often centers on the value of IP, determination of reasonable royalty rates, and the likely outcomes of "hypothetical" negotiations. Similarly, our experience in legal proceedings enables us to advise corporate clients with respect to the risk and financial implications of IP-related strategy decisions.

Rigorous economic and financial analysis
We scrutinize problems with exceptional rigor and thoughtfulness, and bring an extraordinary reserve of intellectual capital to every assignment. Nearly all of our senior consultants hold advanced degrees, offering clients a rare combination of MBAs, PhDs and CPAs--all under one roof. CRA has developed sophisticated decision-tree models to help businesses understand their exposure to IPrelated damages across a range of probabilities and assumptions. In addition to helping corporate clients apply cutting-edge approaches to leveraging IP assets, our analysis and testimony within the litigation setting has helped to establish legal precedent in matters involving computation of lost profits. With more than one hundred senior IP consultants on staff, you can rely on us to offer you sophisticated analytical approaches tempered with results-focused, practical experience.

Broad functional expertise
CRA is one of the world's only integrated providers of both IP business advisory and litigation support services. This synergy-- further strengthened by our acquisition of InteCap in 2004--benefits both CRA and the firms we advise. Our experience advising corporate clients on IP-related valuation transactions and business negotiations adds considerable credibility to our testimony in

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 20

Case Study: A CRA vice president consulted to a food products company that had been found to infringe a patent covering a specialty food additive. The patent owner sought lost profits damages, including lost profits on lost sales, price erosion, and accelerated market entry. In addition, the plaintiff put forth a position claiming a significant reasonable royalty. In evaluating these damages positions, CRA conducted an in-depth analysis of the overall product market, including such issues as customers' purchase criteria, alternatives available to customers and the infringer, and the extent to which sales of the accused products influenced sales of other products. We also evaluated the effects of infringement on pricing and examined the elasticity of demand for the patented product. Our analyses involved thorough independent research, rigorous analytical studies, and a critical evaluation of available evidence to reconstruct the market as it likely would have developed "but for" the infringement. Based on our reconstruction of the market, the CRA expert concluded that the patent owner did not suffer lost profits and should receive only a reasonable royalty as compensation for the infringement. The court agreed with our analysis and denied all forms of lost profits damages. In addition, the court assessed a reasonable royalty consistent with our analysis of the business and economic factors impacting the hypothetical negotiation, including our client's cost of implementing an acceptable non-infringing alternative.

9-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 12 of 30

Objective analysis
Truth is the core of our culture. When you work with CRA, you will receive unvarnished and direct recommendations, each grounded on a solid foundation of hard data and quantitative analysis. We offer you an unbiased perspective, clear and concise conclusions, and an independent viewpoint.

An objective perspective
CRA's success depends on its reputation. Our consultants are literally sworn to tell the truth in some of the highest-stakes litigation proceedings. We carry that same commitment into our work in business strategy, asset valuation, and IP licensing and transaction services. Our fact-based analysis enables us to draw conclusions and present arguments that are credible and on point. We provide information and insights that can be soundly defended and presented in a manner that is as clear and compelling to a trier of fact as it is to corporate management, investors, or licensing partners.

Data-driven analysis
Whenever a question turns on data, you need an advisor with the cutting-edge skills, technology, and techniques to analyze it. Clients trust CRA to provide accurate and comprehensive analysis of the economic benefits derived from IP, its fair market value, the most likely results of a hypothetical negotiation (often a central focus of IP litigation), the economic impact of infringement on the IP owner, and the impact of alternative licensing approaches. We have spent more than two decades helping corporate clients to maximize the value of their IP portfolios and helping law firms by providing accurate analysis and testimony on the economic impact of infringement. Working with us, you can be assured that our recommendations are backed by thorough analysis of all available information.

Creative vision
Tough problems demand innovative solutions. CRA has the tenacity to break through dead ends and the creativity to discover original solutions. We develop novel strategies, uncover sources of information that are often unknown to our clients, and apply established theory in creative ways. CRA has a long record of thought leadership in intellectual property, pioneering new approaches that have set legal precedent, and generating lasting results for clients.

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 20

Results at the focal point
While complex analytics lie at the heart of what we do, clients come to us to help them break through strategic roadblocks and implement practical solutions to complex problems. Most want to maximize the value of IP in the context of an asset sale or licensing program; assess the value of patents, trademarks, or copyrights in the context of a sale or licensing negotiation; or gain an objective assessment of economic harm resulting from infringement. In return, we deliver understandable analysis, clear testimony, and concrete action plans that enable clients to meet those objectives.

contact

If you face a key business decision or a significant legal case regarding intellectual property assets, find out how CRA can help. To learn more about our expertise and service offerings within the IP arena, contact your CRA consultant, our nearest regional office, or visit us on the Web at www.crai.com.

Related areas of expertise
CRA offers an array of industry experience and consulting services that complement our work within the intellectual property sector, including:

· Agricultural and food products · Automotive · Aviation, aerospace, and defense · Biotechnology · Chemicals · Computer software and hardware · Consumer products · E-commerce · Electric, gas, and water utilities · Electronics

· Financial services · Industrial products · Medical devices · Oil and gas · Pharmaceuticals and drug delivery systems · Process industries · Semiconductors · Sports, media, and entertainment · Telecommunications · Transportation

Procter & Gamble Company KPMG LLP Telecom New Zealand Limited Canadian Ministry of Energy Clifford Chance LLP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Sony Pictures Entertainment Proskauer Rose LLP American Chemical Society Michael Best & Friedrich LLP State of Oregon Public Utilities

LLP

Commission (PUC) New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. McLeodUSA Incorporated Ernst & Young LLP Universal Studios

Motorola Incorporated FirstMark Communications Europe S.A. Kerr-McGee Corporation Polaroid Corporation The World Bank Research In Motion Limited Irell & Manella LLP California High-Speed Rail Authority Societe Generale de Financement du Quebec (SGF) TAP Pharmaceutical

Clausen Miller P.C.

Products Inc. Keker & Van Nest LLP McMillan Binch Mendelsohn LLP Scott Paper Company Bacardi-Martini Ltd. Foley & Lardner LLP Great Western Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Northeastern University KNBC Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P. Jenkins & Gilchrist, a

Chemical Company

Professional Corporation Heller Ehrman LLP Shell Oil Company Reserve Bank of Australia Boeing Company Texaco, Inc. Star Tribune WeirFoulds LLP Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. Ontario Ministry of Finance W.R.

Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP Ciba-Geigy Corporation Resources for the Future Sprint Nextel

Grace & Company Bromberg & Sunstein LLP Schwartz, Cooper, Greenberger & Krauss, Chartered Chevron Corporation American Automobile Manufacturers

Association British Horseracing Board CAJUN Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company Coors Brewing Company Compaq Computer United Airlnes, Inc. Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP US Department of Transportation Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. CitiPower Metropolitan Japan-US

Corporation

West Securities, Inc.

CSX Corporation

Perkins Coie Brown & Bain P.A.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Medtronic, Inc.

Cable Network Intel Corporation Albertson's, Inc. Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP The Childrens Mercy Hospital American Home Products Corporation Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Amgen, Inc. Lotus Development Corporation Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

Comisión Federal de Telecomunicaciones

Jefferson Smurfit Corporation Metallgesellschaft Corporation Paramount Communications Power Pool of Alberta Nokia Corporation Montedison S.p.A.

United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP Delhaize Le Lion Baker Botts L.L.P. Sutts, Strosberg LLP Corporation for

Public Broadcasting Volvo Car Corporation PRIMESTAR Reynolds Metal Company Telecom-Empresa Nacional de Telecommunicaciones Thompson Hine

LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP NOVA Chemicals Corporation Eli Lilly and Company Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation El Taller Colaborativo, PC Miller Brewing Company Williams & Connolly LLP City of Chicago Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP Tropicana Petris

Amway Corporation

Technology, Inc. ABC, Inc. Katten Muchin & Rosenman LLP Time Warner Inc. Constantine Cannon, P.C. CNA Financial Corporation Toshiba Corporation LTD Financial Services, L.P. Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery Indianapolis Power & Light Company Novartis Pharmaceuticals

Federal Trade Commission

Corporation Elf Antar France Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd. Seyfarth Shaw LLP American Standard Companies, Inc. Thelen Reid & Priest LLP Saab Con Edison Energy Quaker State Corporation Tasmania Magnesite NL Bausch & Lomb Inc. Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP Blake, Cassels Sealy Hoyts Cinemas LTD. Enterprise Canada Gas Research Institute Hunton & Williams LLP Caterpillar Inc. Pitney Bowes Inc. Mt. Sinai Medical Freeborn & Omnitel

AB

& Graydon LLP

Center

National Basketball Association Monsanto Company

Dorsey & Whitney LLP Bickel & Brewer

Gardner Carton & Douglas LLP PepsiCo, Inc.

Affleck Greene Orr LLP

Peters LLP

Ashland Inc.

Quarles & Brady LLP

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

Ericsson Inc.

Pronto Italia S.p.A. Ford Motor Company Briggs & Stratton Corporation American Iron and Steel Institute Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Sprint Corporation

Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. Bechtel Group, Inc. Welsh & Katz, Ltd. Sunoco Inc. PEPSICO, INC. Allied New York State Attorney General Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) AgrEvo

Van Lines, Inc. Sprint PCS Purdue University

MAPPING AND INVENTORY LICENSING AND ROYALTY AUDITS SALES, ACQUISITIONS, AND DIVESTITURES BUSINESS VALUATION

THE AMERICAS

EUROPE AND THE MIDDLE EAST

ASIA PACIFIC

Headquarters John Hancock Tower 200 Clarendon Street, T-33 Boston, Massachusetts 02116-5092 +1-617-425-3000 Tel +1-617-425-3132 Fax www.crai.com

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 17 of 30

EXHIBIT C

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 18 of 30

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 19 of 30

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 20 of 30

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 21 of 30

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 22 of 30

EXHIBIT D

Systems of Merritt, Inc. Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 1 of 5 Page 23 of 30

Systems of Merritt, Inc.

Projects and Clients Our Focus
As you will see, the development team has a heavy emphasis on printing and prepress, however we also entertain other projects as needs arise. Below is a list of some of our projects and clients.

CT/LW File Processing

This MGI project required the decryption of the proprietary Scitex (new) CT/LW file format, in order to perform custom color processing of the images. The fact that the CT/L file format was undocumented, made the project more challenging, however we routinely handle a variety of image file formats (jpeg, tiff, etc.) from within Adobe plug-ins or from stand-alone applications which we write.

Acrobat PDF/X-1a File Processing
This project required the application of a special color correction technology to PDF/X-1 files. The Acrobat plug-in was required to read color tables and then color correct each object in the pdf file.

Automatic Label Printing

Our friends at Wellness Works faced a big problem each afternoon as they filled orders o nutritional supplements. Each customer required a separate custom label for each supplement bottle on the order. With hundreds of customers, multiple label sizes and alm two hundred products, printing the labels was an extremely time consuming and tedious manual process. As an Intuit Developer, we were able to directly access the customer order information from QuickBooks. From the customer order, the label information was determined. Our experience with the PostScript Language allowed us to write code to automatically gener and print the label sheets.

Automated Quark Xpress Layout
Producing hundreds of custom layouts each day is impossible without some kind of

http://www.systemsofmerritt.com/projects.shtml

9/4/2007

Systems of Merritt, Inc. Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 2 of 5 Page 24 of 30

Producing hundreds of custom layouts each day is impossible without some kind of automation. This project required reading job files which contained layout commands, an then building the files with a Quark Xtension. Workflow controls (stop, start, redo, approvals, etc.) and file handling were also implemented.

Adobe Illustrator Automation Plug-in

This Illustrator Plug-in saves E-Spec customers enormous amounts of time by automatically saving design files in the proper format. Each time a designer finishes a design, they are required to also save a jpeg version. This means navigating through numerous menus and settings. With the new plug-in, the jpeg version of the file is automatically saved each time the Illustrator design file is saved.

PostScript Analyzer Software
PostScript language files are the lifeblood of a prepress workflow system. In addition to driving imaging devices, they can provide important technical information about the job. The job data is actually carried in the PostScript file itself. With the advent of desktop sup computing capability it is now possible to extract this job information from the PostScrip file in a timely manner. The PostScript Analyzer software is an essential piece of a high-volume prepress workflo system. It is designed to keep defective files from entering the system. A defective file is one which may contain runtime (PostScript) errors, or a file which doesn't meet the prope technical specifications. A workflow system which allows faulty or corrupt production fi to enter will compromise its effectiveness, efficiency and bottom line cost. The PostScript Analyzer technology allows the move to a hands-off workflow, necessary for high-volume prepress. Human operators are no longer required to check file characteristics before the file is entered into the production workflow. High-volume workflow systems simply cannot tolerate the cost and inefficiency of manual file checkin

The PostScript Analyzer is a proven concept. Here's what Hallmark has to say: "Our custom Postscript file analyzer enables Hallmark to use a completely digital workflo process, so we can print high-quality products more efficiently and accurately. The analy allows us to validate the digital components within that workflow so we can maintain our high throughput for imposable digital files."

Process Controls for Prepress & Printing

These quality control devices were designed to give added control during the pre-press an

http://www.systemsofmerritt.com/projects.shtml

9/4/2007

Systems of Merritt, Inc. Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 3 of 5 Page 25 of 30

printing processes. For more product information: View these target samples detailing some of the work done for GATF. Download in PDF format. Visit the Graphic Arts Technical Foundation (GATF) - click on process controls.

Cross-Platform InDesign Plug-in Manages Yearbook Pictures

Managing lots of templates, clip art, backgrounds and student pictures can be a real problem for the yearbook staff. This InDesign plug-in written for Friesen Yearbooks provides an elegantly useful tabbed palette interface featuring drag-and-drop image thumbnails. A black-and-white mode allows the automatic conversion of color pictures to black & white for panel pages. Additionally, images are automatically scaled, compresse converted and color corrected according to the requirements of the yearbook manufacture

Yearbook Planning Software.
This cross-platform product helps student plan their yearbook pages. In the past this was done by hand on large paper charts.

D

l Pl tf

Y

b

kP

L

tA

li

ti
9/4/2007

http://www.systemsofmerritt.com/projects.shtml

Systems of Merritt, Inc. Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 4 of 5 Page 26 of 30

Dual-Platform Yearbook Page Layout Application

The Tempo application was written for Taylor Publishing to interface directly to its production workflow systems. Through the use of page templates, the user could quickly build yearbook pages and spreads. Custom page layouts could also be created by the placement of picture and text areas. It also featued a spelling and hyphenation dictionary, plus the ability to bundle groups of pages for delivery to Taylor. The picture area boxes indicate where Taylor will place scanned photos during production. The application was designed and written for both PC and Macintosh as a simple-to-use entry-level yearbook design program. The program output was designed to directly drive Taylor's proprietary imaging systems.

Prepress Workflow Software.
Finding ways to make prepress workflow more efficient is one of our strongest areas of expertise. We have developed a range of technologies for advanced font handling, PostScript file processing and preflight analysis of application files using Adobe plug-in technologies and Quark Xtensions.

Clients Include:

http://www.systemsofmerritt.com/projects.shtml

9/4/2007

Systems of Merritt, Inc. Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 5 of 5 Page 27 of 30

The above logos and trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Dallas New York - Los Angeles Moscow - London Tokyo - Sydney

Contact info:
[email protected] 220 W. McCabe Ave. Upland, IN 46989 U.S.A. 765.998.2133 Copyright ©2007 Systems of Merritt, Inc.
[Home] [Projects] [Engineering Staff]

http://www.systemsofmerritt.com/projects.shtml

9/4/2007

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 28 of 30

EXHIBIT E

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 29 of 30

Case 1:06-cv-00032-JJF

Document 209-2

Filed 09/04/2007

Page 30 of 30