Free Exhibit List - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

EXHIBIT 55
Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR Document 86-6 Filed 12/23/2005 Page1 of 3


UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSI@$ E [ V E Q
Washington, D.C. S DEC ~· 3 2004
In the Matter of
CERTAIN POINT OF SALE TERMINALS AND Inv. N0. 337-TA-524 L
COMPONENTS THEREOF
ORDER NO. 17: GRANTING INGENICO’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO AGREEMENTS ASSIGNING OR LICENSING THE
PATENT-IN-SUIT `
(November 29, 2004)
On November 15, 2004, Respondents Ingenico Corp. and higenico S.A (collectively
A "Ingenico"), filed a motion (524-015) to compel production of doctunents relating to agreements
assigning or licensing the patent-in-suit, along with a request for shortened response time. The
I shortened response time was granted by Order N0. 14, issued on November 16, 2004, making all
responses due by November 23, 2004. On November 23, 2004, the Commission Investigative Staff
("StafP’) stated that it did not oppose the motion.] On November 24, 2004, Complainant Verve
L.L.C. ("Verve"), filed an opposition to the motion.2 On November 26, 2004, Ingenico filed a reply,
which was not accompanied by a motion for leave to tile such reply. The tiling of replies to
responses is not a matter of right and motions for leave to file supplemental pleadings are not
granted automatically. Parties are expected to present their best arguments in the motions and
A ' Specifically, the Staff contacted the undersigned’s attorney-advisor and stated that the Staff
did not oppose the motion and agreed that the precedent cited by Ingenico supported the motion to .
compel.
2 While the undersigned is aware that there has recently been a problem with electronic tiling
in EDIS, panties are reminded that their submissions must be received by the due date and not just
served by the due date.
Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR Document 86-6 Filed 12/23/2005 Page 2 of 3

responses that they are entitled to tile as a matter of right. The proliferation of motions for leave to A
tile supplemental pleadings serves more to delay the adjudicative process than to advance it.
Accordingly, Ingenico’s reply will not be considered as it was improperly tiled.
Ingencio’s motion to compel covers the assigmnent agreement between Verve and Omron,
and Omron and Verve’s licensing agreements of the patent at issue. It appears that Ingenico’s
motion to compel largely overlaps Hypercom’s motion to compel, which was the subject of Order
No. 16, issued on November 17, 2004. That order encouraged Verve to obtain consent from third
parties so that the requested documents could voluntarily be produced under the protection of the
protective order. Consistent with that order, Verve is hereby compelled to produce all discovery
requests regarding the assignment and licensing agreements, as they are clearly relevant discovery.
If Verve continues to insist that it cannot produce the requested documents because it is unable to
. 2 obtain consent, the undersigned hereby compels the production of such documents, in an Lmredacted
form, consistent with Commission precedent. See Certain Hardware Logic Emulation Systems, Inv.
3 3 7-TA-3 83 , Order No. 9, (March 22, 1996) and Certain Microsphere Adhesives, Inv. No. 3 3 7-TA-
366, Order No. 13 (October 26, 1994). -
Accordingly, Ingenico’s motion (524-015) to compel is hereby granted. Verve is compelled
to produce adequate responses to Ingenico’s discovery requests within ten days from the date of this
order.
SO ORDERED. °


Charles E. Bullock
Administrative Law Judge
-2-
Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR Document 86-6 Filed 12/23/2005 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR

Document 86-6

Filed 12/23/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR

Document 86-6

Filed 12/23/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR

Document 86-6

Filed 12/23/2005

Page 3 of 3