Case 1:04-cv-00858-SLR
Document 207
Filed 06/22/2005
Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE LML PATENT CORP., Plaintiff, v. TELECHECK SERVICES, INC., ELECTRONIC CLEARING HOUSE, INC., XPRESSCHEX, INC., AND NOVA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. Defendants. LML PATENT CORP.'S SEVENTH NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF TELECHECK SERVICES, INC. PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(b)(6) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that in accordance with the provisions of Rules 26 and 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff LML Patent Corp. ("LML") hereby provides notice that commencing at 9:00 a.m. on July 14, 2005 at the offices of TeleCheck Services, Inc., 5251 Westheimer, Houston, Texas, or at such other time and place mutually agreed upon by counsel for the parties, it will take the deposition of defendant TeleCheck Services, Inc. ("TeleCheck") by oral examination of witness(es) designated by TeleCheck to testify on its behalf as the person(s) most competent to testify concerning the matters listed on attached Schedule A. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), the person(s) designated by TeleCheck should be prepared to testify as to such matters known or reasonably available to TeleCheck. TeleCheck's counsel is requested to provide to LML's counsel, on or before June 30, 2005, a written designation of the names and positions of the officers, directors, managing ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Civil Action No. 04-858 SLR
Case 1:04-cv-00858-SLR
Document 207
Filed 06/22/2005
Page 2 of 5
agents or other persons who are most competent to testify concerning the matters set forth in Schedule A, and for each person designated, the matters on which he or she will testify. The depositions will be taken upon oral examination before an official authorized by law to administer oaths and will continue from day to day until completed. Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(2), testimony of the witness(es) may be recorded by both stenographic and videographic means.
DATED this 22nd day of June, 2005 /s/ Mary B. Matterer Richard K. Herrmann #405 Mary B. Matterer#2696 MORRIS JAMES HITCHENS & WILLIAMS LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, 10th Floor Wilmington, Delaware 19801 (302) 888-6800 [email protected] Russell E. Levine, P.C. Jamie H. McDole KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 861-2000 Attorneys for LML Patent Corp.
2
Case 1:04-cv-00858-SLR
Document 207
Filed 06/22/2005
Page 3 of 5
SCHEDULE A 1. An explanation of how Telecheck markets each of its checking services to
customers, including an explanation of the involvement of any third party in the marketing and sales process. 2. An explanation of how Telecheck advertises each of its checking services,
including the methods of advertisements, the message intended to be conveyed in its advertisements, and the intended audience for its advertisements. 3. An explanation of the competitive environment for each of Telecheck's checking
services, including Telecheck's identification of who it views as its primary competitors and identification of competing products. 4. A description of Telecheck's customers, including an explanation of how
Telecheck categorizes its customers and any difference in its marketing approach to different customers. 5. The identification and description of any marketing documents that were
disseminated to Telecheck's customers and/or other third parties to aid in the marketing of Telecheck's products and services. 6. materials. 7. An explanation of the bases for the statements and projections made in An explanation of the bases for statements made in Telecheck's marketing
FDC729313-34 and FDC729335-67. 8. An explanation of all benefits associated with the ability to offer an electronic
check conversion product.
3
Case 1:04-cv-00858-SLR
Document 207
Filed 06/22/2005
Page 4 of 5
9.
Any conduct by LML on which Telecheck's defense of estoppel is based,
including what conduct caused Telecheck's inference that LML would not enforce the patent against it, how Telecheck relied on that inference, and any material prejudice to Telecheck because of that reliance. 10. Any conduct by LML on which Telecheck's defense of laches is based, including
any evidence that LML delayed filing suit for an unreasonable length of time and that this delay caused prejudice or injury to Telecheck.
4
Case 1:04-cv-00858-SLR
Document 207
Filed 06/22/2005
Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 22nd day of June, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing document, LML PATENT CORP.'S SEVENTH NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF TELECHECK SERVICES, INC. PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(b)(6), with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of such filing to the following: Collins J. Seitz, Jr., Esq. Francis DiGiovanni, Esq. Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP 1007 North Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Richard D. Kirk, Esq. The Bayard Firm 222 Delaware Avenue, 9th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Additionally, I hereby certify that on the 22nd day of June, 2005, the foregoing document was served via email on the following non-registered participants: Robert Jacobs, Esq. Mark B. Mizrahi, Esq. Belasco Jacobs & Townsley, LLP Howard Hughes Center 6100 Center Drive, Suite 630 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Mark C. Scarsi, Esq. Vision L. Winter, Esq. O'Melveny & Myers LLP 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 William J. Marsden, Jr., Esq. Timothy Devlin, Esq. Fish & Richardson, P.C. 919 North Market Street, Suite 1100 Wilmington, DE 19801
/s/ Mary B. Matterer Richard K. Herrmann (#405) Mary B. Matterer (#2696) MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS & WILLIAMS LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, 10th Floor Wilmington, Delaware 19801 (302) 888-6800 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff LML PATENT CORP. 5