throbber
2/10/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding et al v. Trading Technologies
`
` Conference Call
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING )
`CORP., TD AMERITRADE, )
`INC., AND TD AMERITRADE )
`ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP., )
` ) CBM2014-00131
` Petitioner, ) (PATENT 7,533,056
` ) CBM2014-00137
` VS. ) (PATENT 7,685,055
` )
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES )
`INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`____________________________)
`
` REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
` TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE CALL
`
` TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2015 3:30 P.M.
`REPORTED BY: ARIELA PASTEL, CSR
`HON. JUDGE SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK
`PRESIDING
`-----------------------------------------------------
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1726 M Street, NW, Suite 1010
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`Board Exhibit 3003
`CBM2014-00131
`
`

`
`2/10/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding et al v. Trading Technologies
`
` Conference Call
`
`Page 2
`
`APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
`
`FOR THE PETITIONER:
`
` STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN FOX
` BY: JONATHAN M. STRANG , ESQ.
` ROBERT E. SOKOHL, ESQ.
` 1100 New York Avenue
` NW Suite 600
` Washington, DC 20005
` 202.371.2600
` jstrang-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT &
` DUNNER
` BY: KEVIN RODKEY, ESQ.
` ERIKA H. ARNER, ESQ.
` JOSHUA L. GOLDBERG, ESQ.
` 901 New York Avenue, NW
` Washington, DC 20001-4413
` 202.408.4000
` Kevin.rodkey@finnegan.com
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`
`2/10/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding et al v. Trading Technologies
`
` Conference Call
`
` FEBRUARY 10, 2015
`
`Page 3
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Good afternoon, this
`is Judge Petravick. With me on the phone is Judge
`Medley. We are here for CBM 2014-00131 and
`CBM 2014-00137. We'll do a roll call. Who is on
`the line for petitioner?
` MR. STRANG: Petitioner, Your Honor, is
`Jon Strang, S-t-r-a-n-g, and Rob Sokohl,
`S-o-k-o-h-l. And we do have a court reporter,
`Your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you. And for
`patent owner.
` MR. RODKEY: For patent owner, Your
`Honor, this is Kevin Rodkey, R-o-d-k-e-y. And
`with me is Joshua Goldberg, G-o-l-d-b-e-r-g, and
`Erika Arner, A-r-n-e-r.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Is there anybody else
`on the phone? Thank you.
` Petitioner, you requested this
`conference call, so we'll hear from you first.
` MR. STRANG: Yes. Thank you, Your
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`
`2/10/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding et al v. Trading Technologies
`
` Conference Call
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Honor. The scope of cross exam, in our view,
`should be limited under the rules, specifically
`Rule 37 CFR 42.53(d)(5)ii that for cross
`examination testimony, the scope of the
`examination should be limited to the scope of the
`direct testimony.
` Now, here the translator's declarations
`are just limited to their qualifications, for
`example, I work 34 years as a Japanese translator
`and lived in Japan for 28 years and to also what
`they specifically translated.
` For example, one of the declarants
`declared, "I personally translated Pages 101 to
`140 of the TSE document and certified it as
`accurate and correct."
` And that seems pretty simple, so the
`question is why are we here? Well, during its
`cross examination of our expert, Mr. Rowe
`(phonetic spelling), the patent owner tried to
`exceed the boundaries of acceptable cross
`examination under the rules.
` So rather than have to bother the board
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`
`2/10/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding et al v. Trading Technologies
`
` Conference Call
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`during all of these multiple depositions, we
`thought we would approach the patent owner first
`and discuss among ourselves what the appropriate
`limits would be.
` Patent owner disagrees with our reading
`of the rules as far as the scope of cross
`examination, so it's our position that cross
`examination is limited to what the rule states,
`which is what is on the declaration and that the
`patent owner is not allowed to go on some sort of
`fishing expedition.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: You're finished?
` MR. STRANG: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Patent owner.
` MR. RODKEY: This is Kevin Rodkey for
`patent owner. I think as a first matter, this
`issue is actually a little premature. There
`aren't any objections on the record. There's no
`deposition question pending about those documents.
` And if the petitioner has any
`objections to any specific questions or documents,
`the Trial Practice Guide does permit the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`
`2/10/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding et al v. Trading Technologies
`
` Conference Call
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`petitioner to object on the record, and, if
`necessary, we can have a call during the
`deposition.
` So just as an initial matter, we think
`this is a little premature. And as a second
`matter, this is routine discovery under Rule
`4251(B)(1)ii, and the scope of cross examination
`doesn't mean that we can't use additional
`documents to test the credibility or to impeach
`the translator's pages that they translated.
` So to do that, we may need to put other
`pages from the TSE reference in front of the
`translators to determine whether there are
`inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the pages
`translated by the translator when they also need
`to use other forms of the TSE reference or other
`documents that have been translated by these
`translators that have similar words.
` So if the translator translates words
`inconsistently or the TSE document is translated
`inconsistently, we need to have the ability to put
`those two parts in front of a translator and
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`
`2/10/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding et al v. Trading Technologies
`
` Conference Call
`
`Page 7
`assess whether these are meaningful differences or
`not.
` MR. STRANG: Your Honor, may I respond
`to that?
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Yes.
` MR. STRANG: This kind of dovetails
`with another issue and has to do with what has
`happened during the previous proceedings where
`Mr. Goldberg told this board that a translation of
`TSE has been, quote, heavily disputed" and end
`quote, "outcome determinative" in a district court
`proceeding and before the EPO.
` Now, before the district court, we went
`and pulled that. They didn't provide the district
`court transcript or the EPO transcript. We made a
`good faith effort to make sure there were no
`problems with our translation because we have a
`vested interest in it being correct.
` But we pulled the transcript and --
`which was available print only and found that, on
`the contrary, that the experts who testified --
`and that's a major point here. Experts that read
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`
`2/10/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding et al v. Trading Technologies
`
` Conference Call
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`these are the ones need to decide whether these
`differences are significant.
` So if one person -- if the two
`translations are different, only the expert and
`the technology can tell us whether or not those
`differences are significant as far as what that
`would teach to one of skill in the art.
` And, in fact, during the trial, the
`expert testified that the -- that there were no
`differences, and all significant areas the
`translations were significant -- excuse me -- were
`the same.
` And we also pulled the transcript -- we
`also pulled the EPO proceeding. And, again, we
`found nothing showing that the translations were
`outcome determinative. The parties have
`submitted -- the parties -- we were not involved
`in that, but the patent owner and the opponent in
`the EPO submitted several different translations,
`most of which it looks like were also in the
`trial.
` And, again, we don't see any
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`
`2/10/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding et al v. Trading Technologies
`
` Conference Call
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`significant differences of those. So under
`routine discovery rules, patent owner was
`obligated to serve on us relevant information
`contradicting their position that there had, in
`fact, been heavily disputed and outcome
`determinative translations in previous
`proceedings, and they have not done that.
` So it's our position that they should
`be required to point to us any other proceedings
`where the translations were not outcome
`determinative.
` And as a matter of fact, we think with
`what the patent owner represented to the board,
`we're entitled to at least be pointed to the
`alleged proceedings where the -- (inaudible) -- of
`the translations matter because we simply can't
`find them, Your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: That's a separate
`issue from the scope of this deposition.
` MR. STRANG: Well, we think it's sort
`of the same, Your Honor, because what mattered to
`the court and what should matter to the board,
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`
`2/10/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding et al v. Trading Technologies
`
` Conference Call
`
`Page 10
`it's our position, is whether the experts think
`that the different translations matter.
` Whether a given translator who doesn't
`understand the underlying computer technology
`thinks it makes a difference is not relevant.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: We've heard from you.
`I am going to take a minute to consult with my
`panel, and then we will be back. Please hold the
`line.
` (Whereupon, a recess wad held
` from 3:37 p.m. to 3:41 p.m.)
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: This is Judge
`Petravick back again. Are both parties for the
`petitioner and patent owner still on the line?
` MR. STRANG: Petitioner is here, Your
`Honor.
` MR. RODKEY: Patent owner is here, Your
`Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Judge Medley is with
`me, too. We've heard what you had to say, and
`we've decided that your issue is premature. Until
`we know exactly what the question is going to be
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`
`2/10/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding et al v. Trading Technologies
`
` Conference Call
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`asked and what the facts and relevance of that
`specific question is, we are unable to determine
`whether that question is appropriate or not.
` So we suggest that you follow the Trial
`Practice Guide, and if you find a question to be
`irrelevant or outside the appropriate scope, that
`you make the appropriate objection and then file a
`motion to exclude, as per the terms of our rules.
` As to the other issue, the alleged
`court document that shows that the TSE reference
`is inaccurate, at this point in time, that
`question is also premature.
` The patent owner has not filed a patent
`owner response yet. If they do not provide the
`document -- if they rely upon the document in the
`patent owner's response and they do not provide it
`to you, we will address the issue at that time.
` Since we are not going to be deviating
`from our rules in any way, we will not be issuing
`an order for this call.
` Are there any other questions?
` MR. RODKEY: Your Honor, this is Kevin
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`
`2/10/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding et al v. Trading Technologies
`
` Conference Call
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Rodkey for patent owner. We just have one
`question. It's really guidance from the panel.
` One of the translators is not being
`made available for deposition. And petitioner has
`had a different translator execute a declaration
`attesting to the accuracy of the non-produced
`translator's pages.
` If we want to object to this second
`declaration from this translator, would you like
`us to lodge a new objection with the patent
`owner -- I'm sorry -- with the petitioner, or was
`our original objection to the original O'Connell
`declaration that was served with the petition that
`we originally objected to efficient to preserve an
`objection to this declaration?
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Let me see if I
`understand the circumstances -- the facts as
`you've told them to me correctly.
` So as to your original objection, which
`I assume you served when the translator
`certification came across, you've made -- you
`served an objection at that point, and in response
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`
`2/10/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding et al v. Trading Technologies
`
` Conference Call
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`there's a new declaration by a different
`translator?
` MR. RODKEY: Yes. So let me lay out
`the facts simply just to be clear. So with the
`original petition, there was a declaration of
`Ms. Courtney O'Connell that patent owner objected
`to.
` In response to that, petitioner served
`four different declarations from various
`translators attesting to the accuracy of the TSE
`reference or the translation.
` And then we requested depositions. We
`got them from the board. And one of those
`translators is not being made available for
`deposition.
` Instead the petitioner has submitted a
`new declaration from one of the translators that
`will be deposed attesting to the accuracy of the
`translator who is not appearing for deposition.
` And if we want to object to this final
`declaration, would you like us to do that, or was
`our original objection that necessitated all this
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`
`2/10/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding et al v. Trading Technologies
`
` Conference Call
`
`Page 14
`supplemental evidence sufficient to preserve our
`objection if we choose to try and exclude this?
`Does that make more sense?
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Yes, I understand
`now.
` MR. STRANG: Your Honor, can I add some
`facts to this?
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Sure.
` MR. STRANG: The original declaration
`was followed by -- as was correctly noted, by
`supplemental declarations, a follow-up declaration
`from Courtney O'Connell that explained the
`translation process and then declarations from
`each of the individual four translators.
` One of the translators is in Japan. We
`are unable to make him available for deposition,
`and we approached patent owner, and the parties
`agreed that we would -- that one of the three
`translators who we can make available in the
`United States, in California, could review the
`translation and attest the accuracy.
` And in accordance with the party's
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`
`2/10/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding et al v. Trading Technologies
`
` Conference Call
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`agreement, we served a second declaration from
`that translator -- the translator's name is Ronald
`Skidmore, if I recall correctly -- attesting to
`the -- attesting that he had reviewed the
`translation that was made by the person that is in
`Japan and attested to its accuracy.
` So I think that the -- I don't think
`that -- that patent owner can now bootstrap a new
`objection to something that they've already agreed
`to.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Okay. I'm going to
`take a moment again and conference with my panel
`and the issue. So please hold the line again.
` (Whereupon, a recess was held
` from 3:46 p.m. to 3:50 p.m.)
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: This is Judge
`Petravick. Are both parties still on the line?
` MR. STRANG: Petitioner is on the line,
`Your Honor.
` MR. RODKEY: And patent owner is on the
`line, Your Honor. And I would just like to note
`that we actually specifically reserve the right to
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`
`2/10/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding et al v. Trading Technologies
`
` Conference Call
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`strike Mr. Hino's testimony in one of our
`responses to petitioner, so we didn't necessarily
`agree that this was sufficient.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Well, I've discussed
`this issue with my panel. And we have reviewed
`our rules, and we believe that according to our
`rules, the original objection is sufficient in
`this case.
` The second declaration was supplemental
`to cure the original objection. If you can't
`agree that it cured the original objection, then
`the original objection still stands.
` As to whether the parties agree between
`themselves previously that it did cure the
`objection, that can -- you know, and now if people
`are saying that it's not cure the objection, that
`can be put into any opposition to a motion to
`exclude, if such a motion is filed.
` Again, that, we believe, is just
`according to our rules, so we will not be issuing
`any orders to that effect either.
` We ask that the transcript be filed in
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`
`2/10/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding et al v. Trading Technologies
`
` Conference Call
`
`Page 17
`the case once it is ready. And as that has been
`all the issues, we will adjourn.
`
` (Whereupon, at the hour of
` 3:52 p.m., the proceedings
` were concluded.)
` -o0o-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`
`2/10/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding et al v. Trading Technologies
`
` Conference Call
`
`Page 18
`
`State of Ohio )
` )ss
`County of Ashtabula )
`
` I, ARIELA PASTEL, Certified Shorthand
`Reporter for the State of Ohio, hereby certify:
` The foregoing proceedings were taken before
`me telephonically;
` The proceedings were recorded
`stenographically by me and were thereafter
`transcribed;
` The foregoing transcript is a true and
`correct transcript of my shorthand notes so taken;
` I further certify that I am neither counsel
`for nor related to any party to said action, nor
`in any way interested in the outcome thereof.
` IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
`subscribed my name this 10th day of February,
`2015.
`
` _______________________________
` ARIELA PASTEL, CSR
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket