throbber
4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`Page 1
` IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________________
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORP., )
`TD AMERITRADE, INC., and )
`TD AMERITRADE ONLINE ) Case No. CBM2014-
`HOLDINGS CORP., ) 00131 and
` )
` Petitioners, ) CMB2014-00137
` v. )
` )
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES )
`INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`_______________________________)
`
` ORAL DEPOSITION OF RICHARD HARTHEIMER
` Wednesday, April 29, 2015
` Washington, D.C.
` 9:29 a.m.
`
` Reported by: Susan Ashe, RMR, CRR
`
` ---------------------------------------------------
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1726 M Street NW, Suite 1010
` Washington, DC 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`TDA 1052
`TD Ameritrade v. TT
`CBM2014-00131
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`Page 2
` The oral deposition of RICHARD HARTHEIMER
` was taken at the law offices of Finnegan, Henderson,
` Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, 901 New York Avenue,
` Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20001-4413, on
` Wednesday, April 29, 2015, commencing at 9:29 a.m.,
` in the presence of counsel for the parties.
` It was agreed that Susan Ashe, Registered
` Merit Reporter and Notary Public in and for the
` District of Columbia, would take said deposition in
` machine shorthand and, when requested, transcribe
` the same to typewriting by means of computer-aided
` transcription.
` Said deposition was taken subject alone to
` objections that are required by the Federal Rules of
` Civil Procedure to be made at the time the
` deposition is taken. All other objections were
` reserved until the trial.
`
`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
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`Page 3
`
` APPEARANCES:
` FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT &
` DUNNER, LLP
` BY: JOSHUA L. GOLDBERG, ESQ.
` RACHEL L. EMSLEY, ESQ.
` JIA LU, ESQ.
` 901 New York Avenue, Northwest
` Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
` (202) 408-4000
` - and -
` McDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
` BY: MICHAEL D. GANNON, ESQ.
` 300 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606-6709
` (312) 913-0001
` Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff
`
`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
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`Page 4
`
` APPEARANCES (Continued):
` STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN FOX
` BY: JONATHAN M. STRANG, ESQ.
` BY: RICHARD M. BEMBEN, ESQ.
` 1100 New York Avenue, Northwest
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` (202) 371-2600
` Counsel on behalf of the Defendant
`
` ALSO PRESENT:
` Steven F. Borsand, Trading Technologies
`
`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
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
` INDEX
` WITNESS EXAMINATION BY PAGE
` RICHARD HARTHEIMER Mr. Strang 8
`
`Page 5
`
` EXHIBITS
` HARTHEIMER
` NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
` Exhibit 1 Supplemental Declaration of
` Richard Hartheimer 67
`
` (Exhibits attached to transcript.)
`
`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
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`09:29:00
`
`09:29:03
`
`09:29:06
`
`09:29:09
`
`09:29:12
`
`09:29:12
`
`09:29:17
`
`09:29:17
`
`09:29:19
`
`10
`
`09:29:22
`
`11
`
`09:29:24
`
`12
`
`09:29:24
`
`13
`
`09:29:27
`
`14
`
`09:29:27
`
`15
`
`09:29:29
`
`16
`
`09:29:29
`
`17
`
`09:29:29
`
`18
`
`09:29:32
`
`19
`
`09:29:32
`
`20
`
`09:29:32
`
`21
`
`09:29:42
`
`22
`
`Page 6
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` MR. STRANG: My name is Jonathan
` Strang, and with me I have Richard Bemben.
` And we are representing TD
` Ameritrade. We're with Sterne Kessler.
` MR. GOLDBERG: Joshua Goldberg, with
` Finnegan, for Trading Technologies.
` MS. LU: Jia Lu, for Trading
` Technologies.
` MS. EMSLEY: And Rachel Emsley, also
` for Trading Technologies.
` MR. BORSAND: Steve Borsand, for
` Trading Technologies.
` MR. GANNON: Mike Gannon, with
` McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff, for Trading
` Technologies.
` Whereupon,
` RICHARD HARTHEIMER,
` the Witness, called for examination, having been
` first duly sworn according to law, was examined and
` testified as follows:
` THE WITNESS: Before we start, I just
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`09:29:43
`
`09:29:44
`
`09:29:46
`
`09:29:48
`
`09:29:49
`
`09:29:50
`
`09:29:52
`
`09:29:52
`
`09:29:53
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`09:29:56
`
`10
`
`09:29:59
`
`11
`
`09:30:00
`
`12
`
`09:30:03
`
`13
`
`09:30:07
`
`14
`
`09:30:09
`
`15
`
`09:30:09
`
`16
`
`09:30:12
`
`17
`
`09:30:14
`
`18
`
`09:30:18
`
`19
`
`09:30:21
`
`20
`
`09:30:21
`
`21
`
`09:30:21
`
`22
`
`Page 7
`
` had a couple things.
` During the deposition, if I have to
` look at materials, I need to wear my reading
` glasses.
` MR. STRANG: Okay.
` THE WITNESS: So I'll be --
` MR. STRANG: Me, too.
` THE WITNESS: Yeah. So those will be
` coming on and off very frequently.
` Occasionally, I get restless legs.
` So occasionally what I'm going to do
` is just stand up in place for a few minutes and sit
` back down. Don't let me -- don't let that bother
` anyone, please.
` MR. STRANG: Oh, certainly.
` Certainly. And if you need a break or anything,
` just let your attorney know. And we'll finish the
` line of questioning and take a break at the soonest
` possible stopping point.
` THE WITNESS: Super.
` EXAMINATION
` BY MR. STRANG:
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`09:30:21
`
`09:30:24
`
`09:30:24
`
`09:30:25
`
`09:30:26
`
`09:30:27
`
`09:30:31
`
`09:30:34
`
`09:30:36
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`09:30:39
`
`10
`
`09:30:42
`
`11
`
`09:30:44
`
`12
`
`09:30:47
`
`13
`
`09:30:50
`
`14
`
`09:30:53
`
`15
`
`09:30:57
`
`16
`
`09:30:58
`
`17
`
`09:31:01
`
`18
`
`09:31:04
`
`19
`
`09:31:05
`
`20
`
`09:31:07
`
`21
`
`09:31:09
`
`22
`
`Page 8
`
` Q. Have you been deposed before,
` Mr. Hartheimer?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How many times?
` A. Once.
` Q. And for what case was that?
` A. That was a case to do with what's known as
` the "Togher" patent.
` Q. Okay. Did that involve the same patents
` that are at issue today?
` A. Could you go over those, what patents you
` had in mind.
` Q. Well, I was -- did it involve the Trading
` Technologies Patent No. -- pardon me -- Patent
` No. 7,685,055?
` A. No.
` Q. And Trading Technologies Patent
` No. 7,533,056?
` A. No.
` Q. So you've never given testimony involving
` those two patents?
` A. That's correct. Not in a deposition.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`09:31:13
`
`09:31:14
`
`09:31:15
`
`09:31:16
`
`09:31:20
`
`09:31:24
`
`09:31:25
`
`09:31:28
`
`09:31:31
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`09:31:35
`
`10
`
`09:31:41
`
`11
`
`09:31:43
`
`12
`
`09:31:44
`
`13
`
`09:31:46
`
`14
`
`09:31:48
`
`15
`
`09:31:51
`
`16
`
`09:31:51
`
`17
`
`09:31:52
`
`18
`
`09:31:54
`
`19
`
`09:31:58
`
`20
`
`09:31:59
`
`21
`
`09:32:01
`
`22
`
`Page 9
`
` Q. Not in a deposition?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you given declaration testimony
` involving those two patents?
` A. Not directly.
` Q. Can you explain --
` A. Yeah. I've done other work for TT.
` I'm not aware whether it's those two --
` it's part of a family relating to those patents, but
` not those patents.
` Q. And you understand you're testifying under
` oath?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And as a part of your oath, you must
` testify fully and accurately and to the best of your
` knowledge.
` Do you understand that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And in this deposition, I'm going to ask
` the questions and you're going to give the answers.
` And the court reporter will record them.
` If you nod -- like just now you nodded,
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`09:32:04
`
`09:32:08
`
`09:32:10
`
`09:32:14
`
`09:32:14
`
`09:32:15
`
`09:32:16
`
`09:32:18
`
`09:32:37
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`09:32:39
`
`10
`
`09:32:44
`
`11
`
`09:32:48
`
`12
`
`09:32:59
`
`13
`
`09:33:01
`
`14
`
`09:33:03
`
`15
`
`09:33:09
`
`16
`
`09:33:10
`
`17
`
`09:33:11
`
`18
`
`09:33:12
`
`19
`
`09:33:12
`
`20
`
`09:33:19
`
`21
`
`09:33:21
`
`22
`
`Page 10
` which is, you know, polite society, of course.
` But that won't show up on the transcript.
` So we do need you to say "yes" or "no."
` Do you understand?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is there any reason you could not give
` full and accurate testimony today?
` A. No reason.
` Q. The next exhibit is U.S. Patent
` No. 7,685,055 to Brumfield.
` It's been previously marked TDA 1001 for
` the CBM of this patent.
` MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
` Q. Do you recognize this document,
` Mr. Hartfeld -- excuse me, Hartheimer?
` Is that Dr. Hartheimer? I don't want to
` get it wrong.
` A. No -- no, no.
` Q. Okay.
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. I certainly recognize the first page and
` so on.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`09:33:21
`
`09:33:26
`
`09:33:27
`
`09:33:32
`
`09:33:33
`
`09:33:39
`
`09:33:45
`
`09:33:45
`
`09:34:00
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`09:34:05
`
`10
`
`09:34:05
`
`11
`
`09:34:12
`
`12
`
`09:34:13
`
`13
`
`09:34:14
`
`14
`
`09:34:15
`
`15
`
`09:34:16
`
`16
`
`09:34:18
`
`17
`
`09:34:20
`
`18
`
`09:34:21
`
`19
`
`09:34:22
`
`20
`
`09:34:24
`
`21
`
`09:34:29
`
`22
`
`Page 11
` I'm making the assumption the rest of the
` document is what you say it is.
` Q. So you have reviewed the '055 patent to
` Brumfield before?
` A. Before today, yes.
` Q. Could you turn to Claim 1, which is in
` Column 34.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you see the first line of Claim 1?
` Yeah -- please.
` I need the reading glasses, too.
` A. Line 1 --
` Q. Yes.
` A. -- of the claim; is that what you're
` asking?
` Q. Yeah. The first line of the claim, do you
` see where it says: A method for repositioning a
` static price axis?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you agree that Claim 1 is directed to
` repositioning a static price axis?
` (Witness perusing.)
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`09:35:19
`
`09:35:21
`
`09:35:22
`
`09:35:26
`
`09:35:29
`
`09:35:36
`
`09:35:40
`
`09:35:42
`
`09:35:44
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`09:35:45
`
`10
`
`09:35:47
`
`11
`
`09:35:50
`
`12
`
`09:35:52
`
`13
`
`09:35:57
`
`14
`
`09:36:01
`
`15
`
`09:36:03
`
`16
`
`09:36:06
`
`17
`
`09:36:06
`
`18
`
`09:36:11
`
`19
`
`09:36:12
`
`20
`
`09:36:26
`
`21
`
`09:36:28
`
`22
`
`Page 12
` A. It is about all the things that it says in
` Claim 1.
` The first line says it's a method for
` repositioning a static price axis.
` Q. Okay. And down on line 60, 6-0, of the
` same column is the step that starts: Receiving the
` reposition command.
` And this is the same Claim 1.
` Do you see that step?
` A. I see line 60, yes.
` Q. Now, in that step, the step states:
` Receiving the reposition command to reposition the
` static price axis when a designated price is within
` a designated number of price levels from the lowest
` value or the highest value -- and so forth.
` Do you agree that that step -- strike
` that.
` What is a "designated price" as recited in
` that step?
` MR. GOLDBERG: Objection; scope.
` A. Would you please repeat the question.
` Q. The claim states: Receiving the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`09:36:31
`
`09:36:35
`
`09:36:39
`
`09:36:41
`
`09:37:13
`
`09:37:14
`
`09:37:14
`
`09:38:10
`
`09:38:13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`09:38:19
`
`10
`
`09:38:22
`
`11
`
`09:38:27
`
`12
`
`09:38:31
`
`13
`
`09:38:31
`
`14
`
`09:39:03
`
`15
`
`09:42:37
`
`16
`
`09:42:40
`
`17
`
`09:42:43
`
`18
`
`09:42:47
`
`19
`
`09:42:49
`
`20
`
`09:42:54
`
`21
`
`09:42:55
`
`22
`
`Page 13
` reposition command to reposition the static price
` axis when a designated price is within a designated
` number of price levels -- and then it continues.
` What do the words "designated price" mean?
` MR. GOLDBERG: I repeat the
` objection.
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. May I refer to a copy of my declaration?
` MR. STRANG: Certainly.
` Let the record show this is marked as
` Trading Technologies Exhibit 2102 in the Proceeding
` CBM2014-00137.
` MR. GOLDBERG: Thanks for the extras,
` Jon.
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. I have not considered what -- in the
` course of my analysis -- what the term "designated
` price" means in the context of the patent.
` Q. But you opined on whether or not the art
` teaches this reposition command. Correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So how did you do that without deciding
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`09:42:57
`
`09:42:58
`
`09:43:02
`
`09:43:05
`
`09:43:07
`
`09:43:08
`
`09:43:11
`
`09:43:14
`
`09:43:16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`09:43:19
`
`10
`
`09:43:22
`
`11
`
`09:43:24
`
`12
`
`09:43:27
`
`13
`
`09:43:29
`
`14
`
`09:43:35
`
`15
`
`09:43:37
`
`16
`
`09:43:37
`
`17
`
`09:43:39
`
`18
`
`09:43:41
`
`19
`
`09:44:19
`
`20
`
`09:44:30
`
`21
`
`09:44:34
`
`22
`
`Page 14
`
` what the designated price is?
` A. I didn't feel I needed to define
` "designated price" in order to do that.
` Q. What definition of "designated price" did
` you use in your analysis?
` A. I didn't feel I needed any definition of
` "designated price" to do my analysis.
` Q. Did you just use the ordinary meaning?
` A. No. I didn't need a -- I didn't feel I
` needed to use the term "designated price" to do my
` analysis.
` Q. Do you see that the claim step recites:
` Responsive -- receiving the reposition command to
` reposition the static price axis when a designated
` price is within a designated number of price
` levels....
` How did you look at the art and decide
` what is in the designated price and whether or not
` it's within a designated number of price levels?
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. I simply made the assumption that it was
` some price that was designated.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`09:44:39
`
`09:44:44
`
`09:44:47
`
`09:44:51
`
`09:44:51
`
`09:44:53
`
`09:45:00
`
`09:45:01
`
`09:45:03
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`09:45:08
`
`10
`
`09:45:10
`
`11
`
`09:45:13
`
`12
`
`09:45:14
`
`13
`
`09:45:16
`
`14
`
`09:47:40
`
`15
`
`09:47:40
`
`16
`
`09:47:40
`
`17
`
`09:47:40
`
`18
`
`09:47:40
`
`19
`
`09:47:40
`
`20
`
`09:47:40
`
`21
`
`09:47:40
`
`22
`
`Page 15
` Q. So we can agree that the definition of the
` term "designated price" is a price that's been
` designated?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you agree that the claim does not
` expressly recite any limitations on that price?
` A. Could you repeat the question, please.
` Q. Do you agree that the claim does not
` expressly recite any limitations on what price may
` be designated as the designated price?
` MR. GOLDBERG: Objection; scope.
` MR. STRANG: Counsel, he opines on
` whether or not the art teaches the step.
` I don't think it's beyond the scope.
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. Would you do me a favor, please, and
` repeat the question.
` MR. STRANG: Certainly.
` Court Reporter, could you mark the
` time I asked the question originally. Was it 9:45?
` COURT REPORTER: I'll have to put on
` my time stamps, in just one second.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`09:47:40
`
`09:47:40
`
`09:47:40
`
`10:00:34
`
`10:00:34
`
`10:00:59
`
`10:01:00
`
`10:01:01
`
`10:01:07
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:01:08
`
`10
`
`10:01:09
`
`11
`
`10:01:11
`
`12
`
`10:01:13
`
`13
`
`10:01:14
`
`14
`
`10:01:16
`
`15
`
`10:01:19
`
`16
`
`10:01:23
`
`17
`
`10:01:26
`
`18
`
`10:01:27
`
`19
`
`10:01:30
`
`20
`
`10:01:33
`
`21
`
`10:01:34
`
`22
`
`Page 16
` MR. STRANG: Yeah, we would like a
` time-stamped transcript.
` COURT REPORTER: Yeah, I'll do that.
` I don't have my time stamps on. So
` let me go ahead and turn those on.
` MR. STRANG: Okay. Let the record
` show the time stamp, according to what I have here
` is: I asked the question at 9:45 and 4 seconds.
` And it is now 10:01 and 2 seconds.
` MR. GOLDBERG: Counsel, I'm just
` going to clarify for the record that you indicated
` before that he had opined on this step.
` But in fact, if you actually look at
` his declaration -- and specifically in
` paragraph~19 -- he did not opine on this entire
` step, but rather only opined on a very specific
` limitation related to designated number of price
` levels from the lowest value or the highest value
` along the static price axis, a limitation which does
` not once recite the designated price.
` MR. STRANG: What is that designated
` number of price levels in reference to, Counsel?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`10:01:46
`
`10:01:46
`
`10:01:46
`
`10:01:46
`
`10:01:49
`
`10:01:50
`
`10:01:53
`
`10:02:00
`
`10:02:01
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:02:04
`
`10
`
`10:02:07
`
`11
`
`10:02:10
`
`12
`
`10:02:10
`
`13
`
`10:02:12
`
`14
`
`10:02:17
`
`15
`
`10:02:20
`
`16
`
`10:02:21
`
`17
`
`10:02:23
`
`18
`
`10:02:25
`
`19
`
`10:02:27
`
`20
`
`10:02:29
`
`21
`
`10:02:32
`
`22
`
`Page 17
` The claim says that it repositions
` when a designated price is within a designated
` number of price levels.
` So absent knowing what the designated
` price is, you cannot determine whether or not
` anything -- you don't know what to compare it within
` the designated number of levels.
` MR. GOLDBERG: Again, I'll just
` repeat: The witness did not opine on that specific
` term and did not deal with defining the metes and
` bounds of the claim in any way with respect to this
` particular term.
` MR. STRANG: So he compared the art
` to this claim step without deciding what has to be
` within a designated number of price levels.
` MR. GOLDBERG: Again, the witness did
` not look at the entire step.
` If you look at paragraph 19 of the
` declaration, it specifically refers to just the
` designated number of price levels from the lowest
` value or the highest value along the static price
` axis.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`10:02:33
`
`10:02:35
`
`10:02:35
`
`10:02:36
`
`10:02:40
`
`10:02:53
`
`10:02:54
`
`10:02:58
`
`10:02:58
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:02:59
`
`10
`
`10:03:03
`
`11
`
`10:03:03
`
`12
`
`10:03:05
`
`13
`
`10:03:08
`
`14
`
`10:03:11
`
`15
`
`10:03:11
`
`16
`
`10:03:12
`
`17
`
`10:03:13
`
`18
`
`10:03:14
`
`19
`
`10:03:16
`
`20
`
`10:03:16
`
`21
`
`10:03:18
`
`22
`
`Page 18
` That's the extent of his opinion in
` this regard in paragraph 19 in his declaration.
` MR. STRANG: So he doesn't -- he
` never opines on what has to be within a designated
` number of price levels?
` MR. GOLDBERG: Well, he does refer to
` the lowest value or the highest level along the
` static price axis.
` MR. STRANG: Well, that's with -- a
` designated price levels is from.
` But that boundary is set from the
` lowest value or the highest value.
` What has to be within the designated
` number of price levels from the highest or lowest
` value?
` MR. GOLDBERG: I'm not the one who's
` here to testify.
` The opinion says what it says.
` And --
` MR. STRANG: Okay.
` MR. GOLDBERG: -- the board can sort
` that issue out.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`10:03:18
`
`10:03:19
`
`10:03:22
`
`10:03:26
`
`10:03:29
`
`10:03:40
`
`10:03:42
`
`10:03:43
`
`10:03:46
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:03:46
`
`10
`
`10:03:46
`
`11
`
`10:03:50
`
`12
`
`10:03:54
`
`13
`
`10:03:56
`
`14
`
`10:03:57
`
`15
`
`10:04:31
`
`16
`
`10:06:04
`
`17
`
`10:06:06
`
`18
`
`10:06:11
`
`19
`
`10:06:13
`
`20
`
`10:06:15
`
`21
`
`10:06:17
`
`22
`
`Page 19
`
` BY MR. STRANG:
` Q. The pending question is: Do you agree
` that the claim does not expressly recite any
` limitations on what price may be designated as the,
` quote, designated price?
` A. Okay. I believe the claim has to be taken
` in the context of these --
` Q. But that's not my question.
` We're starting at the claim language.
` We'll move on to what's in the specification next.
` Does the claim say anything about what
` price -- does the claim limit in any way what price
` may be designated as the designated price?
` A. Are you talking about Claim 1?
` Q. Yes.
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. The words "designated price" do not --
` does not appear elsewhere in Claim 1.
` Q. So there's no further limitations on what
` price may be designated as a designated price.
` Correct?
` A. That's not what I said.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`10:06:19
`
`10:06:21
`
`10:06:26
`
`10:06:28
`
`10:06:31
`
`10:06:31
`
`10:06:35
`
`10:06:36
`
`10:06:40
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:06:43
`
`10
`
`10:06:47
`
`11
`
`10:06:50
`
`12
`
`10:06:52
`
`13
`
`10:06:57
`
`14
`
`10:07:03
`
`15
`
`10:07:05
`
`16
`
`10:07:06
`
`17
`
`10:07:08
`
`18
`
`10:07:17
`
`19
`
`10:07:41
`
`20
`
`10:07:43
`
`21
`
`10:07:48
`
`22
`
`Page 20
` Q. Well, what's the difference between what
` you said and what I said?
` A. I was simply talking about the language of
` the claim -- the words in the claim.
` Q. Exactly.
` A. Yes. Your question, again -- your second
` question...?
` Q. ...is: So the claim does not have any
` further limitations on what price may be designated
` as the designated price. Correct?
` A. I can only tell you what the claim says.
` I don't -- I have not considered whether
` the claim has limitations or not limitations with
` respect to the designated price.
` Q. Do the claims give any examples of a
` designated price?
` A. Are you asking of any of the claims?
` Q. Yes.
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. Without reading all of the claims, I
` notice that Claim 2 says: The method of Claim 1
` further comprising the step of establishing the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`10:07:51
`
`10:07:55
`
`10:07:56
`
`10:07:58
`
`10:08:18
`
`10:08:21
`
`10:08:25
`
`10:08:28
`
`10:08:30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:08:48
`
`10
`
`10:08:50
`
`11
`
`10:08:56
`
`12
`
`10:09:01
`
`13
`
`10:09:05
`
`14
`
`10:09:09
`
`15
`
`10:09:13
`
`16
`
`10:09:22
`
`17
`
`10:09:25
`
`18
`
`10:09:29
`
`19
`
`10:09:31
`
`20
`
`10:09:33
`
`21
`
`10:09:57
`
`22
`
`Page 21
` designated price is based on a last trade price for
` the commodity.
` Q. So an example of designated price would be
` the last trade price of the commodity. Correct?
` A. It's simply the -- what the designated
` price is based on in Claim 2.
` Q. What do you mean by "based on"?
` A. It says the word "based on."
` Q. Do you know what those words mean?
` A. No; I haven't considered exactly what
` those words mean.
` Q. Now, Claim 1 continues, in that same
` receiving or reposition command step that we've been
` discussing: Receiving the reposition command to
` reposition the static price axis when a designated
` price is within a designated number of price levels.
` Do you see the term "designated number of
` price levels" in that step?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What do the words "designated number"
` mean?
` A. Sorry. Did you say something?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`10:09:59
`
`10:10:01
`
`10:10:04
`
`10:10:43
`
`10:10:46
`
`10:10:47
`
`10:10:48
`
`10:10:50
`
`10:10:52
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:11:28
`
`10
`
`10:11:31
`
`11
`
`10:11:35
`
`12
`
`10:11:38
`
`13
`
`10:11:40
`
`14
`
`10:11:42
`
`15
`
`10:12:01
`
`16
`
`10:12:04
`
`17
`
`10:12:06
`
`18
`
`10:12:43
`
`19
`
`10:12:46
`
`20
`
`10:12:53
`
`21
`
`10:12:57
`
`22
`
`Page 22
` Q. I just told the court reporter I'd give
` her a copy of the patent afterwards.
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. "Designated number" is a determined
` number.
` Q. It's a determined number?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is there any limit to what number can be
` designated?
` A. I haven't considered whether there's any
` limit to the number -- I'm sorry. I didn't quite
` catch your question -- of the number -- the "W7"
` number designated?
` Q. Yeah. Do the claims limit what numbers
` can be designated as the designated number?
` A. I have not considered whether that limit
` exists or not.
` Q. Could the designated number be two?
` A. I think one has to look at the claims in
` the context of the rest of the patent, etc.
` And that designation and any limit thereof
` would have to come from other information in the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`10:13:04
`
`10:13:04
`
`10:13:06
`
`10:13:07
`
`10:13:09
`
`10:13:51
`
`10:13:57
`
`10:14:00
`
`10:14:01
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:18:36
`
`10
`
`10:18:40
`
`11
`
`10:18:42
`
`12
`
`10:18:47
`
`13
`
`10:18:51
`
`14
`
`10:18:53
`
`15
`
`10:18:54
`
`16
`
`10:18:55
`
`17
`
`10:18:57
`
`18
`
`10:19:03
`
`19
`
`10:19:05
`
`20
`
`10:22:02
`
`21
`
`10:22:04
`
`22
`
`Page 23
`
` patent.
` Q. Well, please look at the rest of the
` patent and answer the question.
` Could the designated number be two?
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. In some of the examples in the patent, the
` designation could be two.
` Q. Could it be ten?
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. I think the allowable numbers depend on
` the -- and I'm reading the parts of the
` specification -- depend on the nature of the screen
` and how many prices there are, etc., etc.
` Q. What portion of the patent are you looking
` at?
` A. The specification.
` Q. Yeah. What page? What column?
` A. I was looking at lots of them. I would
` have to go find them again.
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. I was looking at, among other things,
` Column 9.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`10:22:19
`
`10:22:21
`
`10:22:25
`
`10:22:29
`
`10:22:32
`
`10:22:35
`
`10:22:37
`
`10:22:40
`
`10:22:44
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:22:47
`
`10
`
`10:22:50
`
`11
`
`10:22:52
`
`12
`
`10:22:54
`
`13
`
`10:22:56
`
`14
`
`10:22:58
`
`15
`
`10:23:03
`
`16
`
`10:23:06
`
`17
`
`10:23:07
`
`18
`
`10:23:09
`
`19
`
`10:23:14
`
`20
`
`10:23:16
`
`21
`
`10:23:20
`
`22
`
`Page 24
`
` Q. Where in Column 9?
` A. Starting in -- the paragraph starting in
` line 21.
` Q. And what does it say there?
` A. (Reading:) As the market ascends or
` descends, the price column, the inside market
` working order's last traded price and/or quantity or
` any other item that might be of interest might go
` above or below the price column displayed on a
` trader's screen.
` Q. Okay. And I don't see the words
` "designated price" there.
` Where do you see the words "designated
` price"?
` A. I don't.
` Q. Oh, pardon me. "Designated number."
` Where does it say the word "designated
` number"?
` A. It does not say "designated number."
` Q. Are there any other places that you see
` that you think limit the number of -- which numbers
` can be designated?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`10:23:21
`
`10:23:23
`
`10:23:27
`
`10:23:29
`
`10:23:29
`
`10:24:33
`
`10:24:36
`
`10:24:38
`
`10:24:42
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:24:44
`
`10
`
`10:24:48
`
`11
`
`10:24:51
`
`12
`
`10:24:54
`
`13
`
`10:24:57
`
`14
`
`10:25:00
`
`15
`
`10:25:04
`
`16
`
`10:25:08
`
`17
`
`10:25:16
`
`18
`
`10:25:19
`
`19
`
`10:25:21
`
`20
`
`10:25:25
`
`21
`
`10:25:28
`
`22
`
`Page 25
` A. I would have to read through the whole
` specification again to be sure.
` Q. Please do. We have two days.
` A. Okay.
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. Okay. Another place is in the abstract.
` Q. Okay. What does it say there?
` A. (Reading:) A method for automatically
` positioning information related to a commodity on a
` graphical user interface, market information is
` displayed on the graphical user interface. The
` market information may be presented as a number of
` indicators corresponding to particular items of
` interest that are associated with a static scale.
` The scale may for example represent price. Upon
` detecting a predetermined condition, location of the
` market information is automatically repositioned.
` Q. Do you see the term "designated number"
` anywhere there?
` A. No.
` Q. So let's go back to my other question.
` Can a designated number be ten?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`10:25:32
`
`10:25:37
`
`10:25:39
`
`10:25:41
`
`10:25:41
`
`10:25:42
`
`10:25:44
`
`10:25:46
`
`10:25:48
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:25:51
`
`10
`
`10:25:53
`
`11
`
`10:25:55
`
`12
`
`10:26:04
`
`13
`
`10:26:05
`
`14
`
`10:26:07
`
`15
`
`10:26:08
`
`16
`
`10:26:16
`
`17
`
`10:26:18
`
`18
`
`10:26:20
`
`19
`
`10:26:42
`
`20
`
`10:26:47
`
`21
`
`10:26:51
`
`22
`
`Page 26
`
` A. I don't know.
` Q. You don't know if the designated number
` could be ten.
` Is that correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. But you didn't point to any language that
` said it could not be ten, did you?
` A. I did not point to any language that said
` it could not be ten.
` That doesn't mean that that does not exist
` or might be elsewhere, etc.
` Q. Could it be six?
` A. I don't know.
` Q. Could it be fifte

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