1

LEGAL OPINION LETTER

This is a legal opinion letter for the purpose of checking the legality of producing
compatible products to HID iClass proximity cards. It is issued by Viet Lam Nguyen, a
trademark attorney. This form of legal opinion is drafted on the basis that the client
request the legality of the said act, in compliance to US Federal Trademark Law.
To: Client

[07/30/2022]

Dear Sirs and Madams,

Legality for the action of producing compatible products to HID iClass proximity cards and
the usability of compatible products regardless of encryption standards used.

Introduction

1. We refer to the US Federal Law of Trademarks/Patents, Trademark Manual of

Examining Procedure (TMEP) issued July 2021; Trademark Manual of Examining
Procedure issued July 2021 [USPTO-T-1]; International Trademark Classification
Changes [24 Dec 2015], International Trademark Classification; Changes, 76867–76870
[2016–26682] issued 04 Nov 2016, Changes in Requirements for Affidavits or
Declarations of Use, Continued Use, or Excusable Nonuse in Trademark Cases, 6259–
6265 [2017–00317] issued 19 Jan 2017; Changes in Requirements for Affidavits or
Declarations of Use, Continued Use, or Excusable Nonuse in Trademark Cases, 6259–
6265 [2017–00317] issued 17 Nov 2021; Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) issued
1998; 1996 treaties of World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); Encrypt Act
issued 2019.

2. This letter is provided pursuant to the enquiry of the Client to acknowledge the legality
of producing compatible products to HID iClass proximity cards and the usability of
compatible products regardless of encryption standards used.

3. We have acted as US legal advisers to the Client in connection with enquiry of legality.
This letter may be relied upon only by the Client and may be used only in connection
with the specific case.
4. The provision of this opinion is not to be taken as implying that we owe any duty of care
to anyone other than our client in relation to the content of the Legal Opinion Letter or
the commercial and financial implications of the Legal Opinion Letter. The provision of
this opinion does not create or give rise to any client relationship between this firm and
the HID Corporation or the Client.

5. This letter sets out our opinion on certain matters of US law as at today’s date and as
currently applied by the US courts. We express no opinion on European Union law as it
affects or would be applied in any jurisdiction other than the US. We have not made any
investigation of, and do not express any opinion on, any other law.

6. This letter is to be governed by and construed in accordance with US Federal law.

7. For the purposes of this letter, we have examined:

(A) US Federal Law of Trademarks/Patents, Trademark Manual of Examining

Procedure (TMEP) issued July 2021; Trademark Manual of Examining
Procedure issued July 2021 [USPTO-T-1]; International Trademark
Classification Changes [24 Dec 2015], International Trademark Classification;
 2
Changes, 76867–76870 [2016–26682] issued 04 Nov 2016, Changes in
Requirements for Affidavits or Declarations of Use, Continued Use, or
Excusable Nonuse in Trademark Cases, 6259–6265 [2017–00317] issued 19
Jan 2017; Changes in Requirements for Affidavits or Declarations of Use,
Continued Use, or Excusable Nonuse in Trademark Cases, 6259–6265 [2017–
00317] issued 17 Nov 2021; Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) issued
1998; 1996 treaties of World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); Encrypt
Act issued 2019.

8. For the purposes of this letter, we have carried out:

(A) a search at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on
07/29/2022
(B) a research on relevant case laws on 07/30/2022: Universal City Studios, Inc. v.
Reimerdes/Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley; United States v. Elcom Ltd;
321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc.
together the “Searches”.

Assumptions

9. For the purposes of this letter, we have assumed each of the following:

(A) (i) the information disclosed by the Searches was complete, up to date
and accurate as at the date each was conducted and has not since then
been altered or added to; and

(ii) the Searches did not fail to disclose any information which they should
have disclosed relevant for the purposes of this opinion;
(B) the US Trademark Law is non-prohibitive on producing of compatible
products regarding a trademark.
(C) the DMCA and its rulemakings, the WIPO 1996 treaties and relevant case
laws is non-prohibitive on the making of compatible products regardless of
legal public or private keys.
Opinion

10. Based on and subject to the foregoing, and subject to the reservations set out below, we
are of the opinion that the production of compatible products to HID iClass proximity
cards, using the encryption key:

(A) is duly legal and valid under the US Federal Law of Patents/Trademarks;
and

(B) is in compliance with International Trademark Classification regulations.

(C) The encryption keys included in HID iClass proximity cards, whether
public or private, are legally used in trademarked products. Therefore, the
making of compatible products to said trademarked proximity cards is
duly legal and valid under DMCA and its rulemakings.
(D) ‘Compatible products can be made for any system, regardless of
encryption standard used, if encryption is not secure enough to prevent
compatible products from inter-operating’ is partly accurate. It is not
applicable with compatible products made with illegal or state-secret level
encryption keys.

Yours faithfully,