`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. ______
`Filed: June 5, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE, INC., and
`TD AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00131
`Patent 7,533,056
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`
`Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s
`
`Exhibits 1042, 1052, and 1053, served with Petitioner’s Reply (Paper No. 48).
`
`I.
`
`OBJECTION TO PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT 1042 FOR EXCEEDING
`THE PROPER SCOPE OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1042 (Supplemental Declaration of Kendyl
`
`A. Román in Support of Petitioners’ Reply for Covered Business Method Review
`
`of U.S. Patent 7,533,056) because portions of the Exhibit lack relevance (FRE
`
`402), as they exceed the proper scope of Petitioner’s Reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)
`
`states “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . .
`
`patent owner response.” As explained in the Trial Practice Guide, “new evidence
`
`necessary to make out a prima facie case for [] unpatentability” and “new evidence
`
`that could have been presented in a prior filing” are improper. 77 Fed. Reg. 48767.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibit 1042 because of the prejudice resulting
`
`from Patent Owner’s inability to respond to the untimely evidence and arguments
`
`therein (FRE 403). For example, at least paragraphs 3-6 of Exhibit 1042 exceed
`
`the proper scope of Petitioner’s Reply and are thus irrelevant, untimely,
`
`prejudicial, and objectionable under FRE 402 and FRE 403.
`
`II. OBJECTION TO UNCITED EXHIBITS
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1052 (Deposition Transcript of Richard
`
`Hartheimer held April 29, 2015) under FRE 402. Petitioner nowhere relies on
`
`Exhibit 1052, and it is therefore irrelevant.
`1
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1053 (Deposition Transcript of Akiko
`
`Rosenberry, Vol. II, held February 17, 2015) under FRE 402. Petitioner nowhere
`
`relies on Exhibit 1053, and it is therefore irrelevant.
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joshua L. Goldberg/
`Joshua L. Goldberg, Backup Counsel
`Registration No. 59,369
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 5, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`
`
`Owner’s Objections to Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 was served on
`
`June 5, 2015, via email directed to counsel of record for the Petitioner at the
`
`following:
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`
`Jonathan M. Strang
`jstrang-ptab@skgf.com
`
`Robert E. Sokohl
`rsokohl-ptab@skgf.com
`
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Bradley J. Moore/
`Bradley J. Moore
`Litigation Clerk
`
`
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`