答辯后的具體安排（包括答辯狀樣本—簡約式）
VIA REGULAR INTERNATIONAL MAIL
May 18, 2005
Mr. Jefferson Zimmerman, Esq.
Director of Law Department
Wall Street Venture Capital, Inc.
15 Wall Street
New York, New York 10002
Re: Wall Street Venture Capital, Inc. vs. China Venture Capital Co., Ltd.
Tianjin Intermediate People’s Court, Docket No. TJ101
Dear Mr. Zimmerman:
The defendant filed an answer to our complaint, a translated copy of which is
enclosed for your records. Since the defendant has answered, the People’s Court set
the first trial session on July 1, 2005.
Enclosed please find a pre-trial scheduling order regarding your case. Kindly mark
your calendars; your personal attendance, or your representative’s attendance, is
mandatory at the pre-trial conference on June 12, 2005, and at the subsequent trial
beginning on July 1, 2005.
Be aware, however, that the trial date is subject to change, and the trial itself may not
start until a few days to weeks later depending on the condition of the court’s trial
calendar at that time. The trial may take as long as several days. It may be possible
to settle the case before trial, but for planning purposes we must assume the case will
go forward.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Wang, Zhang & Lee, L.L.P.
___________________
Deguang Zhang, Esq.
Enclosures
TIANJIN INTERMEDIATE PEOPLE’S COURT
(English Translation)

Wall Street Venture Capital, Inc., Plaintiff vs. China Venture Capital Co., Ltd.,
Defendant
Docket # TJ101
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CHINA VENTURE CAPITAL CO., LTD.
COMES NOW the Defendant, China Venture Capital Co., Ltd., by and through its
attorneys, Tianjin Hongda Law Offices, and states as follows in answer to Plaintiff’s
Complaint:
JURISDICTION
1. The allegation contained in paragraph 1 is a conclusion of law to which no
response is required.
2. The allegation contained in paragraph 2 is a conclusion of law to which no
response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary,
Defendant admits that venue in this court is proper, but denies the existence of
any actionable claims.
PARTIES
3. Defendant is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to Wall Street
Venture Capital, Inc.’s organization and principal office. Allegations neither
admitted nor denied are deemed denied.
4. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 4.
5. Defendant is not the appropriate party to respond to the allegations concerning
China Capital Control Group, the major shareholder of Defendant China Venture
Capital Co., Ltd., as contained in paragraph 5. To the extent that a response is
deemed necessary, Defendant objects to the use of the terms “owner” and
“state-controlled company” as being too vague and ambiguous to form a belief
as to the remainder of the allegations contained therein.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
6. Defendant is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations
contained in paragraph 6. Allegations neither admitted nor denied are deemed
denied.
7. Denied.

8. Defendant denies permitting or otherwise authorizing any persons to solicit and
purchase the GR data-transferring technology and denies the remaining
allegations contained in paragraph 8.
9. Defendant admits receiving a letter dated January 23, 2005, from an American
attorney named Leonard B. Smith who presented himself as the attorney for
WSVCI. However, said letter was addressed to and intended for a different local
Chinese company. Defendant denies all allegations contained in the alleged
letter, denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 9 and objects to any
reference to settlement discussions as irrelevant, inadmissible and immaterial.
10. Defendant admits that Defendant, through counsel, responded to the January 23,
2005 letter by advising Counsel for WSVCI that he mistakenly had contacted the
wrong establishment.
11. Defendant admits receiving a letter dated February 25, 2005, from Leonard B.
Smith but denies any “infringements” of WSVCI’S rights. Defendant objects to
Plaintiff’s reference to settlement as irrelevant, inadmissible and immaterial.
12. Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 12, and once
again objects to Plaintiff’s reference to settlement as irrelevant, inadmissible and
immaterial.
COUNT I
CLAIM UNDER P.R.CHINA COMPANY LAW ARTICLE 24
AGAINST DEFENDANT CHINA VENTURE CAPITAL CO.
13. Defendant hereby incorporates by reference herein, as though stated in full, each
of its responses to the allegations of paragraph 1 through 12.
14. The allegations of paragraph 14 are statements of law to which no response is
required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, Defendant denies
each and every remaining allegation of paragraph 14.
15. Denied.
COUNT II
CLAIM UNDER P.R.CHINA CONTRACT CODE ARTICLE 25
AGAINST DFENDANT CHINA VENTURE CAPITAL CO., LTD.

16. Defendant hereby incorporates by reference herein, as though stated in full, each
of its responses to the allegations of paragraph 1 through 15.
17. The allegations contained in paragraph 17 are statements of law to which no
response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary,
Defendant denies each and every allegations of paragraph 18.
18. Denied.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and each and every claim therein, fail to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That Plaintiff is not a “person aggrieved” within the meaning of the P.R.China
Company Law Article 101(b).
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the monetary damages sought in the
Complaint because Defendant did not engage in any conduct that would warrant the
award of such damages.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That Defendant never willfully, unlawfully or otherwise breached or caused to be
breached, any contractual obligations.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That Defendant never transmitted, divulged or published or assisted in the
transmitting, divulging or publishing any of Plaintiff’s business secrets or intellectual
property information.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
That Plaintiff mistakenly has confused Defendant with a similar local company in

close proximity to but unrelated with the Defendant.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, China Venture Capital Co., Ltd., respectfully
requests this honorable Court:
1. To dismiss Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety;
2. To dismiss Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety;
3. To grant Defendant an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in
defending this action; and
4. For such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Tianjin Hongda Law Offices
Attorneys for Defendant
123 Weijin Road
Tianjin 300171
022-2378-1234
_____________________________
By Wei Lan, Esq., Bar # 1234567