IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
`
`No. 15-175C
`
`Judge Eric G. Bruggink
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`IRIS CORPORATION BERHAD,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`THE UNITED STATES,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26(e) and 36 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims
`
`(“RCFC”), the United States (the government), through undersigned counsel, hereby
`
`supplements its initial response to Plaintiff’s first set of Requests for Admission (served
`
`February 25, 2016). As to Request for Admission Nos. 12-14, these supplemental responses
`
`supersede and replace the government’s responses dated March 29, 2016.
`
`Request for Admission No. 12:
`
`
`
`Admit that prior to September 11, 2001, agents of the US INS embarked on a pilot
`
`program with Iris to test Malaysian electronic passports in the United States to determine: (a) if
`
`the technology could be used to expedite processing of arriving passengers at U.S. Ports of
`
`Entry; (b) to validate the authenticity of the passports of the Malaysian traveler; and (c) to deter
`
`use of the fraudulent documents.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`After receiving a supplemental production document from plaintiff bearing bates No.
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`IRIS
`EXHIBIT 2033 PAGE 1
`DOJ v. IRIS
`IPR 2016-00497
`
`
`
`No. 15-175C
`
`Judge Eric G. Bruggink
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`IRIS CORPORATION BERHAD,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`THE UNITED STATES,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26(e) and 36 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims
`
`(“RCFC”), the United States (the government), through undersigned counsel, hereby
`
`supplements its initial response to Plaintiff’s first set of Requests for Admission (served
`
`February 25, 2016). As to Request for Admission Nos. 12-14, these supplemental responses
`
`supersede and replace the government’s responses dated March 29, 2016.
`
`Request for Admission No. 12:
`
`
`
`Admit that prior to September 11, 2001, agents of the US INS embarked on a pilot
`
`program with Iris to test Malaysian electronic passports in the United States to determine: (a) if
`
`the technology could be used to expedite processing of arriving passengers at U.S. Ports of
`
`Entry; (b) to validate the authenticity of the passports of the Malaysian traveler; and (c) to deter
`
`use of the fraudulent documents.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`After receiving a supplemental production document from plaintiff bearing bates No.
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`IRIS
`EXHIBIT 2033 PAGE 1
`DOJ v. IRIS
`IPR 2016-00497
`
`
`
`IRIS004058, defendant conducted an additional search of records. Based on that additional
`
`search, the government collected and produced documents bearing bates Nos. G7-00001 thru
`
`G7-00061. The government admits that, as reflected in documents bearing bates Nos. G7-00001
`
`thru G7-00061, the United States used Malaysian passport readers at U.S. airports on and around
`
`the dates reflected in documents bearing bates Nos. G7-00001 thru G7-00061.
`
`Request for Admission No. 13:
`
`
`
`Admit that prior to September 11, 2001, as part of the pilot program described in Request
`
`for Admission No. 12, agents of the United States obtained and utilized samples of Iris’
`
`electronic passports that were manufactured according to the methods claimed in the ‘506 patent.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
`
`After receiving a supplemental production document from plaintiff bearing bates No.
`
`IRIS004058, defendant conducted an additional search of records. Based on that additional
`
`search, the government collected and produced documents bearing bates Nos. G7-00001 thru
`
`G7-00061. The government admits that prior to September 11, 2001, Neville Cramer, who, at
`
`the time, was an employee of what was then the United States Immigration and Naturalization
`
`Service (INS), supplied sample Malaysian passports from the plaintiff with Mr. Cramer’s own
`
`picture and personal information printed in them to the forensic document laboratory (FDL) in
`
`McLean VA. Defendant further admits that each sample Malaysian passports had an electronic
`
`chip that was electronically read with a passport reader in order to compare the data stored on the
`
`chip with the data reflected on the sample Malaysian passport.
`
`- 2 -
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`IRIS
`EXHIBIT 2033 PAGE 2
`DOJ v. IRIS
`IPR 2016-00497
`
`
`
`The government’s response to Request for Admission No. 12, dated March 29, 2016,
`
`provided that “sample Malaysian passports had an electronic chip that was electronically read
`
`with a passport reader supplied by Mr. Cramer in order to compare the data stored on the chip
`
`with the data reflected on the sample Malaysian passport.” That response is hereby amended to
`
`delete the phrase “supplied by Mr. Cramer” because upon current information and belief the
`
`government is without sufficient information to identify the exact individual, or individuals, who
`
`supplied the Malaysian passport reader to the forensic document laboratory.
`
`The government is without sufficient information to admit or deny that “samples of Iris’
`
`electronic passports [ ] were manufactured according to the methods claimed in the ‘506 patent”
`
`because Defendant did not itself manufacture the samples and thus the Defendant is without
`
`knowledge of the exact components of any integrated circuit in the sample or whether the sample
`
`includes a metal ring as recited in claim 1 of the ‘506 patent.
`
`Request for Admission No. 14:
`
`
`
`Admit that the pilot program described in Request for Admission No. 12 concluded in
`
`2002 and reported results that were “very successful.”
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`The government objects to RFA No. 14 as being unclear, vague, and ambiguous as to
`
`exactly what “reported results” correspond to the alleged characterization of “very successful.”
`
`After receiving a supplemental production document from plaintiff bearing bates No.
`
`IRIS004058, defendant conducted an additional search of records. Based on that additional
`
`search, the government collected and produced documents bearing bates Nos. G7-00001 thru
`
`- 3 -
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`IRIS
`EXHIBIT 2033 PAGE 3
`DOJ v. IRIS
`IPR 2016-00497
`
`
`
`G7-00061. The government admits that, as reflected in documents bearing bates Nos. G7-00001
`
`thru G7-00061, the United States used Malaysian passport readers at U.S. airports on and around
`
`the dates reflected in documents bearing bates Nos. G7-00001 thru G7-00061.
`
`- 4 -
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`IRIS
`EXHIBIT 2033 PAGE 4
`DOJ v. IRIS
`IPR 2016-00497
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`August 1, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BENJAMIN C. MIZER
`Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
`
`JOHN FARGO
`Director
`
`
`
`s/David M. Ruddy
`DAVID M. RUDDY
`Attorney
`Commercial Litigation Branch
`Civil Division
`Department of Justice
`Washington, D. C. 20530
`E-mail: david.ruddy@usdoj.gov
`Telephone: (202) 353-0517
`Facsimile: (202) 307-0345
`
`Attorney for the United States
`
`- 5 -
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`IRIS
`EXHIBIT 2033 PAGE 5
`DOJ v. IRIS
`IPR 2016-00497
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that a true copy of “UNITED STATES’ SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
`
`ADMISSION” was sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, and electronic mail, this 1st day of
`
`August 2016 to:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mr. Stephen Weiss, Esq.
`Law office of Stephen Norman Weiss
`274 Madison Avenue – Suite 901
`New York, NY 10019
`E-mail: Stephen@snweisslaw.com
`Telephone: (646) 801-0371
`Facsimile: (917) 591-4859
`
`Counsel of Record for Plaintiff
`Iris Corporation Berhad
`
`s/David M. Ruddy
`DAVID M. RUDDY
`Attorney
`Commercial Litigation Branch
`Civil Division
`Department of Justice
`E-mail: david.ruddy@usdoj.gov
`Washington, D.C. 20530
`Telephone: (202) 353-0517
`Facsimile: (202) 307-0345
`
`- 6 -
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`IRIS
`EXHIBIT 2033 PAGE 6
`DOJ v. IRIS
`IPR 2016-00497
`
`
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
