Public Version
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN POINT OF SALE TERMINALS AND
`COMPONENT PARTS THEREOF
`
`1
`) 1
`)
`1
`
`1
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-524
`
`Respondent
`
`CyberNet, USA, Inc.
`iPARK Silicon Valley, Suite 3 19
`3003 North First Street
`San Jose, CA 95 134
`
`Counsel for Respondents CyberNet, USA, Inc.
`and Cybernet, Inc.
`
`Charles F. Schill
`Stuart Tin Fah Huang
`Susan Koegel
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`(202) 429-3000
`
`John B. Sganga, Jr.
`Jon W. Gurka
`Irfan A. Lateef
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
`Imine, CA 92614
`(949) 760-0404
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN POINT OF SALE TERMINALS AND
`COMPONENT PARTS THEREOF
`
`1
`) 1
`)
`1
`
`1
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-524
`
`Respondent
`
`CyberNet, USA, Inc.
`iPARK Silicon Valley, Suite 3 19
`3003 North First Street
`San Jose, CA 95 134
`
`Counsel for Respondents CyberNet, USA, Inc.
`and Cybernet, Inc.
`
`Charles F. Schill
`Stuart Tin Fah Huang
`Susan Koegel
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`(202) 429-3000
`
`John B. Sganga, Jr.
`Jon W. Gurka
`Irfan A. Lateef
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
`Imine, CA 92614
`(949) 760-0404
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN POINT OF SALE TERMINALS
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-524
`
`RESPONDENT CYBERNET USA, INC.’S
`RESPONSE TO THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT, VERIFIED SUPPLEMENT TO
`COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION
`
`Respondent CyberNet USA, Inc. (“CyberNet USA”) hereby responds to the Verified
`
`Complaint and Verified Supplement to Complaint filed by Verve LLC (“Verve”) and the
`
`Commission’s Notice of Investigation. The numbered paragraphs of this Response correspond
`
`to the numbered paragraphs in Verve’s Verified Complaint and Verified Supplement to
`
`Complaint.
`
`I. STATEMENT OF FACTS CONSTITUTING THE UNFAIR ACTS
`
`1.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 1.
`
`2.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 2.
`
`3.
`
`CyberNet USA admits that it maintains an office at iPark Silicon Valley, Suite
`
`319,3003 North First Street, San Jose, California 95314, but denies the remaining allegations set
`
`forth in paragraph 3.
`
`4.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 4.
`
`1
`PUBLIC
`
`
`
`5.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 5.
`
`6.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 6.
`
`7.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 7.
`
`8.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 8.
`
`9.
`
`CyberNet USA admits that U.S. Patent 5,012,077 (“the ‘077 patent”) titled
`
`“Credit and Debit Card Processing Terminal” was issued on April 30, 1991 to Omron Tateisi
`
`Electronics Company. Cybernet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny the
`
`remaining allegations, and on that basis denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 9.
`
`10.
`
`With respect to the Cybernet Jade Breakthrough terminals identified in paragraph
`
`10, CyberNet USA denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 10. Cybernet USA lacks
`
`sufficient information to either admit or deny the remaining allegations, and on that basis denies
`
`the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 10.
`
`1 1 .
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 1 1.
`
`12.
`
`CyberNet USA admits that that CyberNet, Inc. has corporate headquarters at 6th
`
`Floor, Sebang Building, 708-8 Yoksamdong, Kangnamku, Seoul, Korea, that CyberNet. Inc. ’s
`
`telephone number is +82 2 501 8418 and fax number is +82 2 501 8434, and that CyberNet, Inc.
`
`has a website at www.cybernetww.com. CyberNet USA denies the remaining allegations set
`
`forth in paragraph 12.
`
`2
`PUBLIC
`
`
`
`13. CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 13.
`
`14. CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 14.
`
`15.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 15.
`
`16.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 16.
`
`17.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 17.
`
`18.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 18.
`
`11. SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF UNLAWFUL IMPORTATION/SALES
`
`19.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 19.
`
`20.
`
`CyberNet USA responds that the accused Jade Breakthrough terminals have never
`
`been sold in the United States. Only four (4) Jade Breakthrough terminals have been shipped to
`
`CyberNet USA in the United States for presentation purposes only to demonstrate the breadth of
`
`CyberNet’s non-US product line. The Jade Breakthrough terminals were shipped to CyberNet
`
`USA without software capable of processing debit and/or credit card transactions, and they did
`
`not contain any software certified by US companies that process such transactions. CyberNet
`
`USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`20, and on that basis denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 20.
`
`3
`PUBLIC
`
`
`
`111. NATURE OF BUSINESS OF EACH COMPANY VIOLATING SECTION 337
`
`21.
`
`CyberNet USA responds that only four (4) Jade Breakthrough terminals have
`
`been shipped to CyberNet USA in the United States for presentation purposes only to
`
`demonstrate the breadth of CyberNet’s non-US product line. The Jade Breakthrough terminals
`
`were shipped to CyberNet USA without software capable of processing debit and/or credit card
`
`transactions, and they did not contain any software certified by US companies that process such
`
`transactions. CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 21, and on that basis denies the remaining allegations set forth in
`
`paragraph 2 1.
`
`22.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 22.
`
`23.
`
`CyberNet USA admits that it maintains a website that contains the information set
`
`forth in the allegations of paragraph 23; however, CyberNet USA has never sold the accused
`
`Jade Breakthrough terminals in the United States.
`
`24.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 24.
`
`25.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 25.
`
`26.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 26.
`
`27.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 27.
`
`28.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 28.
`4
`PUBLIC
`
`
`
`IV. PENDING COURT ACTIONS
`
`29.
`
`CyberNet USA denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 29 regarding the ‘077
`
`patent, which is the subject of a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Verve in the Northern
`District of California, Sari Jose Division, C04 03659 HRL. CyberNet USA lacks sufficient
`
`information to either admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 29, and on that basis
`
`denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 29.
`
`30.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 30.
`
`31.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 3 1.
`
`32.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 32.
`
`33.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 33.
`
`34.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 34.
`
`35.
`
`CyberNet USA admits that on February 4,2004, Verve filed a patent infringement
`
`suit in the Western District of Texas, CIV Action No, 04 CA 062 LY accusing eight defendants,
`
`including Thales e-Transactions, Inc., CyberNet USA, Inc., Verifone, Hypercom and Ingenico
`
`Corp. USA of infringing U.S. Patent No. 4,562,341. CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information
`
`to either admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 35, and on that basis
`
`denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 35.
`
`36.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 36.
`5
`PUBLIC
`
`
`
`V. DESCRIPTION OF VERVE’S BUSINESS AND RELEVANT DOMESTIC
`INDUSTRY
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`37.
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 37.
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`38.
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 38.
`
`39.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 39.
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`40.
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 40.
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`41.
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 41.
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`42.
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 42.
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`43.
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 43.
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`44.
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 44.
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`45.
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 45.
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`46.
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 46.
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`47.
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 47.
`
`6
`PUBLIC
`
`
`
`48.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 48.
`
`VI. IDENTIFICATION OF PATENTS, OWNERSHIP, LICENSEES, AND FOREIGN
`COUNTERPARTS
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`CyberNet USA admits the allegations of paragraph 49.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 50.
`
`51.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 5 1.
`
`52.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 52.
`
`VII. NONTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF INVENTION
`
`53.
`
`CyberNet USA responds that the claims of the ‘077 patent define the legal scope
`
`of the inventions and the generalized statements regarding the ‘077 claims contain
`
`characterizations that prevents CyberNet USA from admitting them, and on that basis the
`
`allegations set forth in paragraph 53 are denied.
`
`54.
`
`CyberNet USA responds that the claims of the ‘077 patent define the legal scope
`
`of the inventions and the generalized statements regarding the invention of the ‘077 patent
`
`contain characterizations that prevents CyberNet USA from admitting them, and on that basis the
`
`allegations set forth in paragraph 54 are denied.
`
`55.
`
`CyberNet USA responds that the claims of the ‘077 patent define the legal scope
`
`of the inventions and the generalized statements regarding the invention of the ‘077 patent
`
`contain characterizations that prevents CyberNet USA from admitting them, and on that basis the
`
`allegations set forth in paragraph 55 are denied.
`
`7
`PUBLIC
`
`
`
`VIII. REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC DOMESTIC ARTICLES AND ALLEGED
`INFRINGING PRODUCTS
`
`56. CyberNet USA admits that Verve attached claim charts to its Complaint, but
`
`denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 56. Upon information and belief, Verve
`
`did not complete an appropriate pre-suit investigation into its infringement allegations, such as
`
`failing to obtain and examine an accused Jade Breakthrough terminal equipped with software for
`
`processing credit and/or debit transactions.
`
`57.
`
`CyberNet USA admits that Verve attached a claim chart to its Complaint, but
`
`denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 57.
`
`XII. RELEVANT DOMESTIC INDUSTRY SUPPLEMENT
`
`58.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 58.
`
`A.
`
`59.
`
`Verve’s Domestic Industry
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 59.
`
`60.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 60.
`
`6 1.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 61.
`
`62.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 62.
`
`63. CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 63.
`
`8
`PUBLIC
`
`
`
`64.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 64.
`
`65.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 65.
`
`66.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 66.
`
`B.
`
`67.
`
`Domestic Industry of Verve’s Licensees
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 67.
`
`68.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 68.
`
`69.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 69.
`
`70.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 70.
`
`71.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 71.
`
`72.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 72.
`
`73.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 73.
`
`74.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 74.
`
`9
`PUBLIC
`
`
`
`75.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 75.
`
`76.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 76.
`
`77.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 77.
`
`78.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 78.
`
`79.
`
`CyberNet USA lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny, and on that
`
`basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 79.
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Failure To State A Claim)
`
`Verve has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Noninfiingement)
`CyberNet USA has not infringed, directly or indirectly, or contributorily, nor has it
`
`induced infringement of the ‘077 patent.
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Invalidity)
`
`The ‘077 patent is invalid for failure to satis@ one or more of the conditions for
`patentability specified in 35 U.S.C. $0 102, 103 and 112.
`
`10
`PUBLIC
`
`
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(No Domestic Industry)
`On information and belief, there is no domestic industry as required by 19 U.S.C. 6 1337.
`
`RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule of Practice and Procedure 21 0.13, CyberNet USA hereby
`
`responds to the Notice of Investigation issued by the United States International Trade
`
`Commission on August 3 1, 2004.
`
`CyberNet USA admits that a Complaint was filed with the Commission on August 2,
`
`2004, as set forth in the Summary section of the Notice. CyberNet USA admits that the
`
`Complaint sets forth the allegations summarized in the Summary section of the Notice.
`
`CyberNet USA also admits that Verve has requested that an investigation be instituted and that,
`
`after investigation, a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist order be issued
`
`as set forth in the Summary section of the Notice.
`
`CyberNet USA admits that the Commission has instituted an investigation as set forth in
`
`the Commission’s Notice of Investigation. CyberNet USA denies that there has been any
`
`violation of Section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and
`
`the sale within the United States after importation of certain point of sale terminals and
`
`components thereof by reason of alleged infringement of claims 1 and 2 of the ‘077 patent.
`
`Upon information and belief, Verve did not complete an appropriate pre-suit investigation into
`
`its infringement allegations, such as failing to obtain and examine an accused Jade Breakthrough
`
`terminal equipped with software for processing credit and/or debit transactions. CyberNet USA
`
`lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the existence of a domestic industry required for
`
`relief by subsection (a)(2) of Section 337, but on information and belief, CyberNet USA alleges
`
`11
`PUBLIC
`
`
`
`that the applicable statutory requirements for a domestic industry have not been met. CyberNet
`
`USA denies that Verve is entitled to any relief in this proceeding.
`
`ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REOUIRED BY 19 C.F.R. 6 210.13(b)
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 2 lO.l3(b)( 1)-(3), CyberNet USA responds that the
`
`investigation into the allegations set forth in the Complaint and Notice of Investigation is just
`
`commencing and has not been completed. Although CyberNet USA firmly believes that the Jade
`
`Breakthrough terminals do not infringe the ‘077 patent, it has not prepared a non-infringement
`
`claim chart at this time. Moreover, upon information and belief, Verve did not complete an
`
`appropriate pre-suit investigation into its infringement allegations, such as failing to obtain and
`
`examine an accused Jade Breakthrough terminal equipped with software for processing credit
`
`and/or debit transactions. CyberNet USA also believes the ‘077 patent is invalid, but it also has
`
`not prepared an invalidity claim chart at this time. Non-infringement and invalidity claim charts
`
`will be provided during the discovery process.
`
`Finally, pursuant to Commission Rule 2 10.13(c), CyberNet USA responds that a physical
`
`sample of the accused article will not be produced at this time due to the cost of the accused
`
`article and the limited number that are present in the United States. An accused article will be
`
`made available for inspection during the discovery process.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`WHEREFORE, CyberNet USA requests that the Commission:
`determine that CyberNet USA has not violated 0 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
`
`a.
`
`amended;
`
`b.
`
`deny Complainant Verve’s request for permanent exclusion order and for a cease
`
`and desist order;
`
`12
`PUBLIC
`
`
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`Dated:
`
`A
`
`determine that CyberNet USA has not infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,012,077;
`
`determine that U.S. Patent No. 5,012,077 is invalid;
`
`determine that there is no domestic industry;
`
`grant such further relief as is deemed necessary and appropriate based upon the
`
`facts determined by the investigation and authority of the Commission.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`C
`Charles F. Schill
`Stuart Tin Fah Huang
`Susan Koegel
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`(202) 429-3000
`
`John B. Sganga, Jr.
`Jon W. Gurka
`Irfan A. Lateef
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
`Imine, CA 92614
`(949) 760-0404
`
`13
`PUBLIC
`
`
`
`S e p 29 2004 4 : 4 5 P M
`
`C y b e r N e t USA
`
`+1-408-432-5053
`
`P. 2
`
`VERIFICATION
`
`I, Robert Murphy, hereby declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United
`
`States that the facts set forth in the foregoing RESPONDENT CYBERNET USA, INC.’S
`
`RESPONSE TO THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT, VERIFIED SUPPLEMENT TO
`COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION are true and correct to the best of my
`
`knowledge, information, and belief, and that I am authorized to execute this Verification on
`behalf of CyberNet USA.
`
`Executed on Septembe&Y, 2004.
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that copies of RESPONDENT CYBERNET USA, INC.’S
`RESPONSE TO THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT, VERIFIED SUPPLEMENT TO
`COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION were served by hand or overnight
`delivery where indicated upon the following parties on September 30, 2004:
`
`The Honorable Marilyn R. Abbott
`Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW, Room 112
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`(original plus six (6) copies by hand)
`
`Administrative Law Judpe:
`
`(Two Copies - by hand)
`
`The Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`United States International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 317-1
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`Commission Investigative Attorney:
`
`(One Copy - by hand)
`
`Juan Cockburn, Esq.
`c/o Jeffrey R. Whieldon, Esq.
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW, Room 401-H
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`On behalf of Complainant Verve L.L.C.:
`
`(One Copy - by Overnight Delivery)
`
`Christopher S. Walton, Esq.
`Gregory S. Donahue, Esq.
`Simon, Galasso & Frantz P.L.C.
`115 Wild Basin Road, Suite 107
`Austin, TX 78746
`
`
`
`On behalf of Respondents Ingenico S.A. and Ingenico Corporation:
`(One Copy - by Hand)
`
`Larry S. Nixon, Esq.
`Nixon & Vanderhye P.C.
`1 100 North Glebe Road, Sth Floor
`Arlington, VA 2220 1-47 14
`
`Ruffin B. Cordell, Esq.
`Fish and Richardson P.C.
`1425 K Street, N.W., 1 lth Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`(One Copy - by Hand)
`
`On Behalf of Respondents Thales e-Transactions S.A. and Thales e-Transactions, Inc.:
`(One Copy - by Hand)
`
`Kevin M. O’Brien, Esq.
`D. James Pak, Esq.
`Baker and McKenzie LLP
`8 15 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`
`(One Copy - by Overnight Delivery)
`
`John G. Flaim, Esq.
`Brian C. McConnack, Esq.
`William D. McSpadden, Esq.
`Baker and McKenzie LLP
`2300 Trammel1 Crow Center
`2001 Ross Avenue
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`On Behalf of Respondent Hypercom Corporation.:
`(One Copy - by Overnight Delivery)
`
`Sid Leach, Esq.
`Andy Halaby, Esq.
`David Caplan, Esq.
`Snell & Wilmer LLP
`One Arizona Center
`400 East Van Buren
`Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`On Behalf of Respondents CvberNet, USA, Inc. and CvberNet, Inc.:
`(One Copy - by Overnight Delivery)
`
`John B. Sganga, Esq.
`Jon W. Gurka, Esq.
`Irfan A. Lateef, Esq.
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP
`2040 Main Street
`Fourteenth Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`On Behalf of Respondents Trintech, Inc. and Trintech Group PLC:
`(One Copy - by Hand)
`
`Paul F. Brinkman, Esq.
`Alston & Bird LLP
`601 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
`Washington, DC 20004
`
`E. Joseph Benz, 111, Esq.
`Alston & Bird LLP
`Bank of America Plaza
`1101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000
`Charlotte, NC 28280
`
`On Behalf of Respondent VeriFone, Inc.:
`
`Owen W. Dukelow, Esq.
`Kolisch Hartwell, P.C.
`520 S.W. Yamhill Street,
`Suite 200
`Portland, OR 97204
`
`(One Copy - by Overnight Delivery)
`
`(One Copy - by Overnight Delivery)
`
`Steptoe & Johnson, LLP
`1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`
`- 3 -
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
