`571.272.7822
`
` Paper No. 23
`
` Entered: January 6, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORP., TD AMERITRADE, INC., AND
`TD AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`CBM2014-00131 (Patent 7,533,056)
`CBM2014-00133 (Patent 7,676,411)
`CBM2014-00135 (Patent 6,772,132)
`CBM2014-00137 (Patent 7,685,055)
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131 (Patent 7,533,056)
`CBM2014-00133 (Patent 7,676,411)
`CBM2014-00135 (Patent 6,772,132)
`CBM2014-00137 (Patent 7,685,055)
`
`
`
`On January 5, 2015, the initial conference call1 was held between
`counsel for the respective parties and Judges Medley, Petravick, and
`Hoffmann.
`
`Motions
`Neither party seeks authorization to file a motion at this time. If
`Patent Owner determines that it will file a motion to amend, Patent Owner
`must arrange a conference call with the Board and opposing counsel to
`discuss the proposed motion to amend. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a).
`In addition, a party seeking authorization to file a motion not
`contemplated per the Scheduling Order must arrange a conference call with
`opposing counsel and the Board.
`
`Discovery
`Petitioner requested certain documents from Patent Owner per rule
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i) (routine discovery). Patent Owner disagreed that
`the requested documents are routine discovery, but rather are additional
`discovery. As discussed, the parties may agree to additional discovery
`between themselves. 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2). The parties agreed to discuss
`Petitioner’s requests further in an attempt to come to an agreement regarding
`the sought after documents. The parties shall arrange a conference call with
`the Board if there remains any dispute regarding discovery.
`Schedule
`Petitioner sought authorization to move DUE DATE 7 (oral argument
`date), but withdrew the request based upon discussion. Accordingly, there
`
`1 The initial conference call is held to discuss the Scheduling Order and any
`motions that the parties anticipate filing during the trial. Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48765 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131 (Patent 7,533,056)
`CBM2014-00133 (Patent 7,676,411)
`CBM2014-00135 (Patent 6,772,132)
`CBM2014-00137 (Patent 7,685,055)
`
`
`
`are no current issues with the Scheduling Order.
`To the extent issues arise with DATES 1-5 identified in the
`Scheduling Order, the parties are reminded that, without obtaining prior
`authorization from the Board, they may stipulate to different dates for
`DATES 1-5, as provided in the Scheduling Order, by filing an appropriate
`notice with the Board. The parties may not stipulate to any other changes to
`the Scheduling Order.
`
`Related Matters
`The parties believe that a motion to stay the related district court case
`has been contemplated. Patent Owner shall file an updated notice regarding
`any decision of a motion to stay. 37 C.F.R. § 42.8.
`Settlement
`The parties have nothing to report with respect to settlement.
`Order
`
`It is
`ORDERED that no motions are authorized at this time.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131 (Patent 7,533,056)
`CBM2014-00133 (Patent 7,676,411)
`CBM2014-00135 (Patent 6,772,132)
`CBM2014-00137 (Patent 7,685,055)
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`Lori Gordon
`Jonathan Strang
`Robert E. Sokohl
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX
`lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`jstrang-PTAB@skgf.com
`rsokohl-ptab@skgf.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Erika H. Arner
`Steven F Borsand
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT AND DUNNER,
`LLP
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`Steve.Borsand@tradingtechnologies.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`
`4
`
`
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
