Free Statement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

EXHIBIT 30
Case 2:04-cv—00400—PGR Document 85-27 Filed 12/23/2005 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION i
Washington, D.C.
Before Charles E. Bullock
Administrative Law Judge
In the Matter of
CERTAIN POINT OF SALE I I Inv. No. 337-TA-524
TERMINALS AND COIVIPONENTS
THEREOF
DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS J. REICH
I, Douglas J. Reich, declare as follows:
I 1. I am the Senior Vice President, General Counsel, Chief Compliance Officer and
Corporate Secretary of Hypercom Corporation ("Hypercom"), and have served in that capacity
since January 2004. I have personal knowledge ofthe facts stated in this declaration.
2. On September 16, 2004, I participated in a meeting with the following
representatives of Omron Corporation (“Omron”): Herbert Korner, counsel for Omron
Corporation, and Tctsuyuki Nakano, Executive Director of Omron’s North American Intellectual
Property Office. The meeting was also attended by Hyperc0m's outside counsel, Sid Leach and
_ David Caplan.
3. The purpose ofthe meeting with Omron representatives was to discuss the patent
claims asserted against Hypercom by Verve, L.L.C. (“Verve") in various lawsuits filed around V
the country, with the ultimate goal of resolving the patent infringement claims asserted by Verve,
together with any additional patent infringement claims that Omron may have had. One
condition that Hypercom set on the meeting was that Omron provide assurance that Omron could
resolve all of the patent infringement claims against Hypereom, including those asserted by
Case 2:04-ev—00400—PGR Document 85-27 Filed 12/23/2005 Page 2 of 3

Verve.
4. During the course of the meeting, Omrotfs counsel, Herbert Kerner, assured the
l-Iypercom representatives, including me, that Omron could settle all of the patent ini3Ti.ngen1ent
claims against I-Iypercom, including those asserted against Hypercom by Verve. He stated in
words or substance that Omron could settle on behalf of Verve and could make the various
lawsuits tiled by Ve1ve"g0 away." Iundcrstood this to mean that Omron exercised some
control over Verve’s patent enforcement activities.
5. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on December 17, 2004.
$@1;%. Reich; Q
2
Case 2:04-cv—00400—PGR Document 85-27 Filed 12/23/2005 Page 3 of 3

EXHIBIT 30

Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR

Document 85-27

Filed 12/23/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR

Document 85-27

Filed 12/23/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR

Document 85-27

Filed 12/23/2005

Page 3 of 3