`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`____________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`The TSE translation (Ex. 1004) is admissible because it is relevant and
`properly supported by affidavits of accuracy .................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`The affidavits of record far surpass the Rule’s requirements for the
`TSE translation ...................................................................................... 1
`
`1. Ms. O’Connell’s affidavits were supported by sufficient
`personal knowledge..................................................................... 4
`
`2.
`
`The supplemental affidavits from Ms. O’Connell and the
`translators were timely ................................................................ 6
`
`3. Mr. Skidmore confirmed during cross-examination that his
`translation was true and accurate to the best of his ability ......... 7
`
`B.
`
`The accuracy of the TSE translation goes to its weight, not its
`admissibility .......................................................................................... 9
`
`III. The Supplemental Román Declaration (Ex. 1042) is admissible because it is
`relevant and it passes the balancing test of FRE 403 .................................... 11
`
`IV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`
`Cases
`
`Doe v. Young,
`664 F.3d 727 (8th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................... 13
`
`Intri-Plex Techs. v. Saint-Gobain Perf. Plastics Rencol,
`IPR2014-00309 (paper 83, Mar. 23, 2014) .............................................................. 15
`
`Mexichem Amanco Holdings v. Honeywell Int’l,
`IPR2013-00576 (paper 50, Feb. 26, 2015) .......................................................... 5, 12
`
`Schultz v. Butcher,
`24 F.3d 626 (4th Cir. 1994) ..................................................................................... 14
`
`Sony Corp. v. Yissum Research,
`IPR2013-00218 (paper 53, Sep. 22, 2014) .............................................................. 10
`
`Tennard v. Drake,
`542 U.S. 274 (2004) ................................................................................................. 10
`
`Vibrant Media v. General Electric,
`IPR2013-00170 (paper 56, June 26, 2014) .................................................. 12, 14, 15
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean v. Nidec Motor,
`IPR2014-01121 (paper 20, Jan. 21, 2015) ................................................................. 6
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) ................................................................................................ 14
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) .............................................................................................. 2, 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b) .............................................................................................. 2, 5
`37 C.F.R. 104(c) ......................................................................................................... 6
`
`Other Authority
`
`Wright & Miller § 5054.1 .......................................................................................... 5
`Wright & Miller § 5214.2 ........................................................................................ 13
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exh. No.
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`
`
`Exhibit List
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 to Friesen et al. (“’056 patent”)
`File History of Application Ser. No. 11/417,544, which became the
`’056 patent, as filed and obtained from PAIR (“’056 Patent File
`History” or “File History”)
`“Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation
`Guide,” Tokyo Stock Exchange (“TSE JP”)
`Certified Translation of “Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading
`Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE”)
`Certificate of Translation for “Futures/Option Purchasing System
`Trading Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE Certificate” or “1st
`O’Connell Decl.”)
`Memorandum from James M. Hilmert to eSpeed file regarding
`direct examination of TSE’s 30(b)(6) witness, dated December 5,
`2005 (“Depo. Letter”)
`Deposition Transcript of Atsushi Kawashima, Trading Technologies
`International, Inc., v. eSPEED, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312, United
`States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
`dated November 21, 2005 (“Depo. Transcript”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,375,055 to Togher et al. (“Togher”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,619,631 to Schott (“Schott”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,136,501 to Silverman et al. (“Silverman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,809 to Hogan et al. (“Hogan”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterman et al. (“Gutterman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,454,104 to Steidlmayer et al. (“Steidlmayer”)
`Reuters Globex User Guide, June 1995 (“Globex”)
`Alan Cooper, “About Face: The Essentials of User Interface
`Design,” First Edition, 1995. (“Cooper”)
`Edward R. Tufte, “The Visual Display of Quantitative Information,”
`1983 (“Tufte VDQI”)
`Edward R. Tufte, “Envisioning Information,” Third Edition,
`- iii -
`
`
`
`Exh. No.
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`
`Description
`December 1992 (“Tufte EI”)
`Ben Shneiderman, “Designing the User Interface: Strategies for
`Effective Human-Computer Interaction,” Third Edition, 1998
`(“Shneiderman”)
`Sunny J. Harris, “Trading 101 – How to Trade Like a Pro,” 1996
`(“Harris”)
`Robert Deel, “The Strategic Electronic Day Trader,” 2000 (“Deel”)
`Sun Microsystems, Inc., “Open Look™ Graphical User Interface
`Functional Specification,” November 1989 (“Open Look”)
`Valerie Quercia et al., “X Window System User’s Guide,”
`OSF/Motif 1.2 Edition, The Definitive Guides to the X Window
`System, Vol. 3, August 1993 (“Quercia”)
`Richard W. Afrms Jr., “Profits in Volume - Equivolume Charting,”
`1975 (“Arms”)
`Definition of “default,” The Computer Glossary, Fifth Edition, 1991
`page 175. (“Computer Glossary”)
`Definition of “default,” The Illustrated Dictionary of
`Microcomputers, Third Edition, 1990, page 90. (“Illustrated
`Dictionary”)
`Definition of “default,” Webster’s New World College Dictionary,
`Fourth Edition, 2007, page 378. (“Webster’s”)
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 2002, pages 102,
`150, 174, 176, and 348 (“Microsoft Computer Dictionary”)
`Defendants’ Memorandum of Law In Support of Joint Motion for
`Summary Judgment That the ’056 Patent is Invalid Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112 ¶ 1 for Lack of Written Description, Trading Technologies
`International, Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-00715,
`United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
`Eastern Division, filed August 15, 2011 (“SJ Motion”)
`Trading Technologies International Inc.’s (1) Opposition to
`Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary Judgment That the ’056
`Patent is Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 for Lack of Written
`Description and (2) Cross Motion for Summary Judgment That the
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`Exh. No.
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`1033
`1034
`
`1035
`1036
`1037
`1038
`1039
`1040
`1041
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`
`Description
`’056 Patent Meets the Written Description Requirement Set Forth in
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1, Trading Technologies International, Inc. v.
`BGC Partners, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-00715, United States District
`Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, filed
`September 14, 2011 (“SJ Opposition”)
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Trading Technologies
`International, Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-00715,
`United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
`Eastern Division, filed February 9, 2012 (“SJ Opinion”)
`Vernon L. Smith, “An Experimental Study of Competitive Market
`Behavior,” The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. LXX, No. 2,
`April 1962 (“Smith”)
`Declaration of Kendyl A. Román (“Román Decl.”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Kendyl A. Román (“Román CV”)
`List of Materials Considered by Kendyl A. Román (“Román List of
`Materials”)
`Official Transcript of Conference Call held January 20, 2015
`Declaration of Ronald E. Skidmore (“Skidmore Decl.”)
`Declaration of Maho Taniguchi-Speller (“Speller Decl.”)
`Declaration of Eiken Hino (“Hino Decl.”)
`Declaration of Akiko Rosenberry (“Rosenberry Decl.”)
`Declaration of Courtney O’Connell (“2d O’Connell Decl.”)
`April 16, 2015 Hearing Transcript (“Apr. Conf. Call Tr.”)
`Supplemental Declaration of Kendyl A. Román in Support of
`Petitioners’ Reply for Covered Business Method Review of U.S.
`Patent 7,533,056 (“Suppl. Román Decl.”)
`Deposition Transcript of Christopher Thomas held April 28, 2015
`(“Thomas Tr.”)
`Deposition Transcript of Christopher Thomas held August 14, 2007
`(“Thomas eSpeed Tr.”)
`Supplemental Declaration of Richard Hartheimer dated October 21,
`2011 (“Suppl. Hartheimer Decl.”)
`- v -
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`
`Description
`Excerpts of Trial Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. 11-A, Trading
`Tech’s Int’l v. eSpeed Inc., et al. Case No. 04-cv-5312 (N.D. Ill.),
`held September 26, 2007. (“eSpeed Tr. Vol. 11”)
`Excerpts of Trial Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. 12-A, Trading
`Tech’s Int’l v. eSpeed Inc., et al. Case No. 04-cv-5312 (N.D. Ill.),
`held September 27, 2007. (“eSpeed Tr. Vol. 12”)
`Excerpts of Trial Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. 17-A, Trading
`Tech’s Int’l v. eSpeed Inc., et al. Case No. 04-cv-5312 (N.D. Ill.),
`held October 4, 2007. (“eSpeed Tr. Vol. 17”)
`Summary of Facts and Submissions for European Patent No. 1 319
`211, dated September 30, 2010 (“EPO Summary of Facts and
`Submissions”)
`Deposition Transcript of Harold Abilock held April 24, 2015
`(“Abilock Tr.”)
`Proprietor’s Response to Communication Pursuant to Article 101(1)
`and Rule 81(2) to (3) EPC, dated June 14, 2011 (“EPO Response”)
`Deposition Transcript of Richard Hartheimer held April 29, 2015
`Deposition Transcript of Akiko Rosenberry, Vol. II, held February
`17, 2015
`Petitioners’ Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence Pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) dated December 16, 2014
`Petitioners’ Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence Pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) dated March 13, 2015
`Declaration of Jay Knoblock
`Declaration of Chris Thomas (served as Ex. 2211)
`Wright & Miller § 5054.1
`Wright & Miller § 5214.2
`Videotaped Deposition of Akiko Rosenberry, Volume II
`
`Exh. No.
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`1056
`1057
`1058
`1059
`1060
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`
`The Board should deny TT’s motion to exclude in all respects. TT
`
`consistently fails to apply basic principles of evidence law, such as FRE 401’s
`
`“Test for Relevant Evidence,” which states that evidence is relevant if “it has any
`
`tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the
`
`evidence,” and FRE 403’s balancing test, which requires balancing the probative
`
`value of the evidence against certain enumerated dangers, none of which are
`
`present here. Instead, TT makes the improper (and incorrect on the facts) argument
`
`that the evidence is irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial under the FRE because it is
`
`beyond the scope of a Reply.
`
`II. The TSE translation (Ex. 1004) is admissible because it is relevant and
`properly supported by affidavits of accuracy
`
`The Board should deny TT’s motion as to the TSE translation because the
`
`timely filed affidavits of accuracy -- which TT does not seek to exclude -- far
`
`surpass the Rules’ requirements. Each translator’s portion of TSE was incorporated
`
`into the filed translation, which easily passes the relevancy test of FRE 401, which
`
`merely requires it to have any tendency to make a fact more or less probable.
`
`A. The affidavits of record far surpass the Rule’s requirements for
`the TSE translation
`
`The Rules require filing “an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the
`
`translation” with the translation. 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b). TD Ameritrade did so. The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`Rules allow timely service of supplemental evidence to cure objections. 37 C.F.R.
`
`
`
`§ 42.64(b). Again, TD Ameritrade did so, and these original and supplemental
`
`affidavits far surpass the Rule’s requirement for “an affidavit attesting to the
`
`accuracy of the translation.” TT does not seek to exclude any of these affidavits,
`
`and that should be the end of this dispute.
`
`TD Ameritrade filed Ms. O’Connell’s first declaration, certifying that the
`
`TSE translation is “true and accurate,” along with the TSE translation. Ex. 1005
`
`(“1st O’Connell Decl.”). This affidavit conformed to TransPerfect’s standard
`
`template for certifying legal translations, was in accordance with typical industry
`
`practice, and was similar to what the Board had accepted in the past. O’Connell Tr.
`
`at 80 (Ex. 2093); Ecowater Sys. v. Culligan Int’l Co., IPR2013-00155, Ex. 1006,
`
`Papers 10 and 18; see also Geotext Translation at 1 (Ex. 2214); TransPerfect Refco
`
`Translation at 1 (Ex. 2216); Abilock Decl. at 73 (Ex. 2097).
`
`In response to TT’s objections (Ex. 2273), TD Ameritrade timely served Ms.
`
`O’Connell’s second declaration, in which she established the basis for her personal
`
`knowledge that the TSE translation is accurate -- she had personal knowledge that:
`
`(i) TransPerfect’s translation procedures are certified to be compliant with ISO
`
`9001:2008 and EN 15038:2006; (ii) TransPerfect “uses its own proprietary
`
`[translator] testing and certification process,” which has a mere 15% pass rate; (iii)
`
`the four translators used to translate TSE were TransPerfect-certified translators;
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`and (iv) TransPerfect followed its certified procedures when performing the TSE
`
`
`
`translation. Ex. 1040 at 1-2 (“2d O’Connell Decl.”). Based on those facts, Ms.
`
`O’Connell reasonably concluded that “the TSE document translation is a true and
`
`accurate translation.” Id. at 2; 1st O’Connell Decl. at 1. TD Ameritrade also timely
`
`served affidavits from the four translators attesting to the accuracy of his or her
`
`respective portion of the TSE translation. Skidmore Decl. (Ex. 1036); Speller Decl.
`
`(Ex. 1037); Hino Decl. (Ex. 1038); Rosenberry Decl. (Ex. 1039).
`
`TT does not dispute that TransPerfect has a certified and reliable translation
`
`process using certified translators, and that when translating TSE, TransPerfect
`
`followed its certified and reliable process using certified translators. That TD
`
`Ameritrade asked for a “rush turnaround,” which under TransPerfect’s certified
`
`procedures provides for a final verification from a program manager rather than a
`
`review by an independent translator, changes nothing. Mot. at 4; O’Connell Tr. 50,
`
`74. The Rules do not require a final check by a different translator, and doing so
`
`exceeds TT’s own translator practices. E.g., Abilock Tr. at 12-13 (no second
`
`translator, and uses editors that do not speak Japanese) (Ex. 1028); id. at 37-39
`
`(Abilock’s translation procedures are not certified or audited).
`
`The TSE translation is admissible because these affidavits of record
`
`“attesting to the accuracy of the translation” satisfy 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b), and as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`discussed below, the TSE translation is relevant because it tends to show that the
`
`
`
`underlying prior-art document teaches TT’s claims.
`
`1. Ms. O’Connell’s affidavits were supported by sufficient
`personal knowledge
`
`TT does not challenge the underlying facts of Ms. O’Connell’s testimony or
`
`TransPerfect’s translation process (relied upon by law firms across the country,
`
`including Finnegan), but instead argues that Ms. O’Connell lacks sufficient
`
`personal knowledge to testify to the ultimate issue of the accuracy of the
`
`translation. Mot. at 3. TT is not seeking to exclude either of Ms. O’Connell’s
`
`affidavits, but is instead trying to create a sideshow to distract the Board from the
`
`merits of this proceeding.
`
`The Rules require an affidavit “attesting to the accuracy of the translation.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b). That is what Ms. O’Connell provided. The Rule is written in
`
`the passive voice; it does not state who must attest to the accuracy of the
`
`translation. If the person providing the affidavit lacks sufficient personal
`
`knowledge under FRE 602, a party may object and preserve that objection by filing
`
`a motion to exclude the affidavit. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64; Mexichem Amanco Holdings
`
`v. Honeywell Int’l, IPR2013-00576, Order at 3, (paper 29, Aug. 15, 2014) (party
`
`may object and file motion to exclude translation affidavit).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`TT did not seek to exclude Ms. O’Connell’s affidavits because TT does not,
`
`
`
`and cannot, dispute the underlying facts of Ms. O’Connell’s testimony or that she
`
`established her personal knowledge of those facts. FRE 602(b) (“Evidence to prove
`
`personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own testimony.”); Wright &
`
`Miller § 5054.1 (FRE 602 allows the witness’s own testimony to prove the FRE
`
`104(b) preliminary question of whether she has sufficient personal knowledge to
`
`testify) (Ex. 1058). It is undisputed that Ms. O’Connell has personal knowledge
`
`that TransPerfect followed its certified and reliable translation procedures using the
`
`four certified translators to translate the 337-page TSE reference. 2d O’Connell
`
`Decl. at 1-2; O’Connell Tr. at 25, 31-34, 61-68; 69-76, 79-84. TransPerfect uses
`
`this same process for all legal work, and Ms. O’Connell (with her supervisor
`
`Karrie Russ) is responsible for all legal translations for all firms in the DC metro
`
`area, including Kirkland, Arnold & Porter, and Finnegan. Id. at 80-81; 83-84. From
`
`that factual basis, Ms. O’Connell certified that the translation is accurate. 1st
`
`O’Connell Decl.; 2d O’Connell Decl. at 2; O’Connell Tr. at 73 (“our processes our
`
`certified, so any translation we produce can be deemed as a certified translation”);
`
`id. at 80 (“[My first] affidavit is TransPerfect’s standard template that we’ve been
`
`using for years and one that I was trained to use. And typically we . . . use that
`
`template and get it notarized and provide that to our client.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`That Ms. O’Connell and TD Ameritrade did not talk to the translators or
`
`
`
`discuss the substance of the translation merely confirms that TransPerfect’s
`
`translators fairly and accurately translated the TSE prior art, and unlike TT’s
`
`translator Mr. Abilock, were insulated from TD Ameritrade’s counsel. Mot. at 5;
`
`O’Connell Tr. at 32-33, 51-53, 67-69.
`
`2.
`
`The supplemental affidavits from Ms. O’Connell and the
`translators were timely
`
`TT cites Zhongshan for the proposition that the Board should not consider
`
`TD Ameritrade’s timely filed supplemental affidavits, arguing that supplemental
`
`evidence cannot be used to cure defects in an affidavit filed with the translation.
`
`Mot. at 3, 6, 10 (citing Zhongshan Broad Ocean v. Nidec Motor, IPR2014-01121,
`
`Inst. Dec. at 11-13 (paper 20, Jan. 21, 2015)).
`
`TT is wrong, and the Board should consider the timely filed affidavits.
`
`Zhongshan is inapposite because that panel narrowly held that filing no affidavit is
`
`not a correctable clerical error under 37 C.F.R. 104(c). Zhongshan at 9-12. In
`
`contrast, the Board here ordered TD Ameritrade to file the already served
`
`supplemental affidavits of accuracy (Paper 27, Jan. 22, 2015), just as other panels
`
`have done in various situations, including cases like here, where the initially filed
`
`affidavit was from a manager rather than a translator. Norman Int’l v. Andrew J.
`
`Testamentary Trust, IPR2014-00283, Final Written Decision at 14 (Paper 52, June
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`18, 2015), Ex. 1002, Ex. 1021 (ordering petitioner to file a new, compliant
`
`
`
`affidavit after oral argument); TSMC v. DSS Tech. Mgmt, IPR2014-01030,
`
`Decision at 3 (Paper 11, Feb. 3, 2015), Ex. 1004, Ex. 2012 (substituting Japanese-
`
`speaking attorney’s declaration for manager’s declaration); Handiquilter v.
`
`Bernina Int’l, IPR2013-00364, Order at 2 (Paper 10, Sep. 13, 2013), Ex. 1005
`
`(June 17, 2013), Sub. Ex. 1005 (Sep. 18, 2013) (substituting translator declaration
`
`for manager’s declaration); Medtronic v. Nuvasive, IPR2014-00074, Order at 2
`
`(Paper 14, Apr. 1, 2014); Toyota Motor Corp. v. Am. Vehicular Sci., IPR2013-
`
`00417, Order at 2 (Paper 13, Dec. 5, 2013) (ordering petitioner to serve
`
`supplemental affidavit after objections served).
`
`Further, TT waived this timeliness argument by not raising it when it asked
`
`to cross-examine the translators. TT should have raised this issue then rather than
`
`pursuing its expensive, time consuming, and ultimately fruitless game of “gotcha”
`
`with TransPerfect’s translators in a desperate attempt to distract TD Ameritrade
`
`and the Board from the merits of this case.
`
`3. Mr. Skidmore confirmed during cross-examination that his
`translation was true and accurate to the best of his ability
`
`Although TT does not formally seek to exclude the Skidmore declaration, it
`
`is asking the Board to ignore it, asserting that Mr. Skidmore denied that he had
`
`translated his portion of TSE. Mot. at 1, 7-9. TT is wrong. Reading Mr. Skidmore’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`testimony in context, and taking into account Ms. O’Connell’s corroborating
`
`
`
`testimony, the only reasonable conclusion is that Mr. Skidmore’s translated portion
`
`was integrated into the filed TSE translation.
`
`First, Ms. O’Connell confirmed under oath that Mr. Skidmore’s portion of
`
`the translation was integrated into the final exhibit according to TransPerfect’s
`
`process. 2d O’Connell Decl.; O’Connell Tr . at 25, 66, 72. Second, everyone at Mr.
`
`Skidmore’s deposition -- including Mr. Skidmore and TT’s counsel -- understood
`
`that Mr. Skidmore translated his pages. For example:
`
`Q: Why would you translate “zengoba” as “AM/PM 19 session”?
`
`A: Translation is a process. And many times we learn as we go along,
`
`and we don’t always catch the places previous and update them as we
`
`go along.
`
`Skidmore Tr. at 25 (emphasis added, objection omitted); see also id. at 36 (“Would
`
`this text have been clearer if you had used ‘up or down’ or ‘above or below’ for
`
`‘jouge’ here?” (emphasis added)).
`
`Q: And do you think that “jouge” could have been translated in this
`
`bullet to “up or down”?
`
`A: This is something I did almost a year ago. I do not remember too
`
`closely what was going on then, and I can’t really say what’s the
`
`better translation now.
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`Skidmore at 38 (emphasis added, objection omitted); see also id. at 23 (“I did the
`
`
`
`best I could.”).
`
`As for TT’s quotes, Mr. Skidmore was understandably cautious and
`
`distrustful at the beginning of his deposition. He is not a professional witness. He
`
`had never been deposed before, never been placed in front of a videographer and
`
`court reporter and grilled by lawyers. Skidmore Tr. at 7. He did not immediately
`
`recognize the TSE or his translated portion because it had been almost a year, and
`
`the poor copy provided by TT’s counsel was illegible in parts where the electronic
`
`version that he translated was not. Compare Mot. at 9 (quoting Mr. Skidmore’s
`
`statement that he does not “forget things like this”) with Skidmore Tr. 17-18
`
`(showing that “this” is an illegible block on TT’s poor printout of page 0101,
`
`which is legible in the electronic version, Ex. 1007); see also Speller Decl. at 19-21
`
`(TransPerfect distributes documents to translators electronically).
`
`B.
`
`The accuracy of the TSE translation goes to its weight, not its
`admissibility
`
`The TSE translation unquestionably satisfies the low bar presented by FRE
`
`401 and is therefore admissible under FRE 402. The prior art is the foreign-
`
`language document itself, not its translation. Even if imperfect, the TSE translation
`
`tends to show that the foreign-language TSE prior art teaches TT’s claims. FRE
`
`401 (relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`would be without the evidence”); Tennard v. Drake, 542 U.S. 274, 284 (2004)
`
`
`
`(FRE 401 presents a “low threshold”).
`
`Because a translation’s accuracy goes to its weight, not its admissibility, the
`
`Rules contemplate that a party may dispute what the underlying art teaches by
`
`submitting its own translation and expert testimony regarding the relevant portions
`
`of the prior art. Sony Corp. v. Yissum Research, IPR2013-00218, Final Written
`
`Decision at 42-43 (paper 53, Sep. 22, 2014) (denying petitioner’s motion to
`
`exclude translations and addressing alleged inconsistencies).
`
`In contrast, the affidavit-of-accuracy requirement ensures that translations of
`
`record have some threshold indicia of reliability. If the opposing party believes the
`
`affidavit is defective, it may object to the affidavit and seek to exclude the
`
`affidavit. But such a challenge is not to the translation’s accuracy, but its pedigree.
`
`As is proper under the Rules, TD Ameritrade addressed TT’s accuracy
`
`arguments in its Reply. POR at 1-2, 25-27; Reply at 23-24. To summarize, there is
`
`no factual dispute regarding the teachings of the TSE reference. The only evidence,
`
`as opposed to attorney argument, on this issue is Mr. Román’s testimony. He
`
`reviewed the TSE translation of record and TT’s unsupported allegations regarding
`
`TransPerfect’s synonym choice, and concluded that the alleged errors did not
`
`affect his opinion regarding what TSE teaches. Suppl. Román Decl. ¶ 7 (addressing
`
`synonym choice such as “meigara” as “brand” and “saiken” as “securities” and
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`“bond”). TT provides no testimony to the contrary. As Mr. Abilock made clear
`
`
`
`during his deposition, he limited his declaration to just two short passages on page
`
`0115 of TSE, which are not at issue here. Abilock Tr. at 60-61 (testifying that he
`
`opined only on “bullet 2 and the illustrative caption” of page 0115, and refusing to
`
`discuss any other portion of TSE) (Ex. 1050).
`
`III. The Supplemental Román Declaration (Ex. 1042) is admissible because
`it is relevant and it passes the balancing test of FRE 403
`TT seeks to exclude ¶¶ 3-6, and 71 of this declaration as irrelevant and
`
`prejudicial. Mot. at 10-14 (citing FRE 402, 403). TT did not meet its burden
`
`because it did not address relevancy and unfair prejudice balancing test under the
`
`FRE, instead improperly and incorrectly arguing that this testimony exceeds the
`
`proper scope of a Reply and should have been filed with the Petition. Id.
`
`As an initial matter, TT relies on improper arguments. “A motion to exclude
`
`is not an appropriate vehicle for challenging . . . a reply’s supporting evidence as
`
`exceeding the scope.” Mexichem Amanco Holdings v. Honeywell Int’l, IPR2013-
`
`00576, Final Written Decision at 31 (paper 50, Feb. 26, 2015) (citing cases);
`
`Vibrant Media v. General Electric, IPR2013-00170, Final Written Decision at 31-
`
`32 (paper 56, June 26, 2014) (“A motion to exclude is not a mechanism to argue
`
`1 It is unclear whether TT intended to list ¶ 4 on page 14 of its Motion as that
`
`paragraph is not previously discussed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`that a reply contains new arguments or relies on evidence necessary to make out a
`
`
`
`prima facie case.”).
`
`Putting that aside, TT has not met its burden as movant to show that any of
`
`Mr. Román’s supplemental declaration is irrelevant or should otherwise be
`
`excluded under FRE 402/403. Starting with FRE 402, evidence is relevant and
`
`generally admissible if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable
`
`than it would be without the evidence.” FRE 401, 402. TT did not address the FRE
`
`401 relevance test in its Motion. In any event, the testimony is unquestionably
`
`relevant, and that is why TT is seeking to exclude it. Suppl. Román Decl. ¶¶ 3
`
`(addressing TT’s § 101 arguments regarding the claims and how a computer is
`
`used, e.g., POR at 3-4, 9-11, 21 ), 4 (addressing TT’s noninfringing products
`
`assertions, e.g., POR at 14-17), 5 (addressing TT’s arguments that it would be bad
`
`design to use a last-entered value in a system that also has a default value that
`
`survives shutdown, e.g., POR at 40-41).
`
`Similarly, TT’s assertion that ¶¶ 6 and 7 are irrelevant because they are not
`
`cited in a brief (Mot. at 14) is nonsensical because the FRE does not require
`
`citation, and is wrong because these paragraphs are in fact cited in the Reply at
`
`pages 18 (responding to TT’s arguments regarding the claim term “indicate”) and
`
`23 (responding to TT’s arguments regarding the TSE translation), respectively.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`TT also failed to apply FRE 403’s balancing test, which is that the
`
`
`
`“probative value [of this testimony] is substantially outweighed by a danger [of]
`
`unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting
`
`time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” FRE 403. TT did not address
`
`the probative value of the testimony, which must be weighed assuming it will
`
`ultimately be believed by the fact-finder. Wright & Miller § 5214.2 (Ex. 1059). As
`
`for the other side of the balancing test, TT did not meaningfully address the
`
`enumerated grounds of confusing the issues, wasting time, misleading the jury,
`
`cumulative evidence, or undue delay. Rather, the thrust of TT’s argument is that it
`
`was unfairly surprised or prejudiced by the declaration. But unfair surprise is not
`
`one of the listed grounds for exclusion, and being outside the scope of a reply is
`
`not prejudicial under FRE 403. Doe v. Young, 664 F.3d 727, 733-36 (8th Cir.
`
`2011) (abuse of discretion to exclude evidence under FRE 403 on the grounds of
`
`unfair surprise); FRE 403 Notes (“‘Unfair prejudice’” within [the FRE 403]
`
`context means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis,
`
`commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one. The rule does not enumerate
`
`surprise as a ground for exclusion.”).
`
`Here, the probative value of the evidence outweighs any of the dangers
`
`enumerated in FRE 403. The testimony is highly probative on the above-listed
`
`§§ 101 and 103 issues before the Board, and unlike a jury, the Board is unlikely to
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,533,056
`be unfairly swayed. Schultz v. Butcher, 24 F.3d 626, 632 (4th Cir. 1994) (“For a
`
`
`
`bench trial, we are confident that the district court can hear relevant evidence,
`
`weigh its probative value and reject any improper inferences.”).
`
`And assuming arguendo that exceeding the scope of a Reply is a proper
`
`grounds for exclusion, TT did not meet its burden to show that the complained-of
`
`portions were improper. TT quotes 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), which states that a Reply
`
`may only address arguments raised in the POR, but TT does not address whether
`
`the evidence was properly raised in rebuttal to TT’s arguments. “The very nature
`
`of a reply is to respond to the opposition, which in this case is the patent owner
`
`response.” Vibrant Media at 31-32 (denying similar motion to exclude).
`
`As in Vibrant Media, TT’s “motion does not contain any meaningful
`
`discussion of the arguments that [TT] has made i