Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

EXHIBIT C

Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR

Document 164-4

Filed 04/13/2007

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COAffWSSfON Washington' D.C. Before Charles E. Bullock Administrative Law fudge

In theMntter of CERTAIN POINT OF SALE TWDNALS AND COWONENTS THx:I.IJI'OF Inv. No. 337-TA-524

DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS L -REICH

I, Douglas J. Reich, declare as follows: 1. I am the Senior Vice preslden4 General Counsel, Chief' Compliance Officer and

Corporate Secretary of Hypercwm Corporation Cllyperaom'j, and have served in that capacity since January 2004. I have personal lmowiedge of the facts stated in this declaration. 2. On September 16, 2004, Iparticipated in a meeting with the following Herbert Kerner, cotmsei for Omxon

representatives of Ornron Corporation

Corporation, and Tetsuyuki: Nakano, Executive Dirvetor of Oraron's North American IutedlecbW Prop9ty Office. The mooting was also atteudad by Hypereom's outside counsel, Sid Leardh and ,Dwdd Caplan.
3. The purpose of the meeting with Omron representatives was to discuss the patent

claims asserted agi*nst Hypercom by Verve, L.L.C. { `Verve) in various lawsuits filed around the country, with the ultimate goal of resolving the patent imfrmgement clams asserted by Verve, tosether with any additional patent inkirrgement claims that Omrvn mayhave bad. One condition that Hypmwm set on the mcoUng was that Orman provide assutame that Ornron could resolve all of the patent InMnS=unt claims against Hypt~rcam, including those asserted by

LPOID927

Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR

Document 164-4

Filed 04/13/2007

Page 2 of 3

Verve. 4. Dozing the course of the meeting, Qwiron's counsel, Herbert Kemer, assured the

Hypemom representatives, Mcluding me, that Omrinn could settle all of the patent inf Wment claims against Hypercom, including those asserted agaiztst Hypercom by Verve. He slated in words or substance that Omron could scale on bebalf of Verve and could make the various lawsuits filed by Verve "go away." I understood this to mean that Omron exercised some control over Verve's patent enforcWmat activities. 5. I declare underpenalty ofpedury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on December 17, 2004.

2

LPOODS28

Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR

Document 164-4

Filed 04/13/2007

Page 3 of 3