throbber
CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`1
`
` 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. |
` Petitioner, | Case CBM2014-00131
` v. | Patent 7,533,056
`TRADE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, |
`INC., |
` Patent Owner. |
`———————————————————————————————————
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, |
`TD AMERITRADE, INC., and TD |
`AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP. |
` Petitioner, | Case CBM2014-00133
` v. | Patent 7,676,411
`TRADE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, |
`INC., |
` Patent Owner. |
`———————————————————————————————————
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, |
`TD AMERITRADE, INC., and TD |
`AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP. |
` Petitioner, | Case CBM2014-00135
` v. | Patent 6,772,132
`TRADE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, |
`INC., |
` Patent Owner. |
`———————————————————————————————————
` (Caption continues on following page)
` Thursday, July 17, 2014
` 3:00 p.m. EST
` Teleconference before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board, Judge Meredith C. Petravick presiding, the
`proceedings being recorded stenographically by Jonathan
`Wonnell, RMR, a Registered Professional Court Reporter
`(NCRA# 835577) and Notary Public of the State of
`Minnesota, and transcribed under his direction.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`BOARD EXHIBIT 3001
`TD Ameritrade v. Trading Technologies
`CBM2014-00131
`
`Page 1 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`2
`
` (Caption continues:)
`———————————————————————————————————
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, |
`TD AMERITRADE, INC., and TD |
`AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP. |
` Petitioner, | Case CBM2014-00136
` v. | Patent 6,766,304
`TRADE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, |
`INC., |
` Patent Owner. |
`———————————————————————————————————
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, |
`TD AMERITRADE, INC., and TD |
`AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP. |
` Petitioner, | Case CBM2014-00137
` v. | Patent 7,685,055
`TRADE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, |
`INC., |
` Patent Owner. |
`———————————————————————————————————
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 2 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S O F C O U N S E L
` (All participants appearing by phone)
`
`3
`
` On behalf of the Patent Trial and Appeal
` Board:
` MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, ESQ., JAMESON LEE, ESQ.
` and PHILLIP J. HOFFMAN, ESQ.,
` Administrative Patent Judges
`
` On behalf of TD Ameritrade:
` ROBERT E. SOKOHL, ESQ.
` JONATHAN M. STRANG, ESQ.
` Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
` 1100 New York Avenue, NW
` Washington, DC 20005
` (202) 371-2600
` rsokohl@skgf.com
` jstrang@skgf.com
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 3 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont'd)
` On behalf of Trade Technologies
` International:
` ERIKA HARMON ARNER, ESQ.
` JAMES K. HAMMOND, ESQ.
` Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
` Dunner, LLP
` Two Freedom Square
` 11955 Freedom Drive
` Reston, Virginia 20190-5675
` (571) 203-2700
` erika.arner@finnegan.com
` james.hammond@finnegan.com
`
` On behalf of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
` Garrett & Dunner:
` SEAN M. SELEGUE, ESQ.
` Arnold & Porter LLP
` Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
` San Francisco, California 94111-4024
` (415) 471-3169
` sean.selegue@aporter.com
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 4 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`5
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont'd)
`
` ALSO PRESENT:
` STEVE BORSAND, Trade Technologies, Inc.,
` JONATHAN WONNELL, Court Reporter,
` Henderson Legal Services
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 5 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` (3:00 p.m. EST)
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: This is Judge Petravick
`and with me on the phone are Judge Jameson Lee and
`Judge Phil Hoffman. I believe we are here for CBMs
`2014-00131, 133 and 135, 136 and 137. Is that
`correct?
` MR. SOKOHL: Correct.
` MS. ARNER: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Counsel for Petitioner,
`let's do a roll call. Petitioner, please start.
` MR. SOKOHL: Sure. Robert Sokohl and
`Jon Strang from Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: I'm sorry. I didn't hear
`that last name.
` MR. SOKOHL: That last name was Jon
`Strang, S-t-r-a-n-g.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you. Counsel for
`Patent Owners?
` MS. ARNER: Hi, Your Honor. This is a
`Erika Arner with Finnegan. Also I'm joined by Jim
`Hammond from our law firm as well as Steve Borsand
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 6 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`from Trade Technologies, the Patent Owner. And
`also on the line with us is Sean SeLegue who is
`Finnegan's outside counsel related to the potential
`discussion of a motion to disqualify Finnegan. And
`there's also a court reporter -- I mean the court
`reporter is on the line as well.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And Patent Owner, you've
`arranged for that court reporter?
` MS. ARNER: Yes.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And you will file a
`transcript after the call?
` MS. ARNER: Yes, we will. Mm-hmm.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Exhibit Number 3001.
`All right.
` I understand, Petitioner, you've
`submitted one matter to us and, Patent Owner,
`you've submit three matters to us. We're going to
`start with the Petitioner's matter regarding the
`motion to disqualify counsel. So Petitioners,
`since you requested this call, would you please
`start to explain your view.
` MR. SOKOHL: Sure. This is Rob Sokohl.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 7 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`So we are asking for authorization from the Board
`to file a motion to disqualify. We're going to
`attempt to outline briefly the relevant facts, but
`there are a few facts, including when Finnegan was
`approached by Trade Technologies, that only
`Finnegan can provide and to date they have refused
`to provide this information. So we're going to
`proceed based on the facts as we understand them.
` The issue here is essentially concurrent
`representation of adverse parties. Here it's TD
`Ameritrade and Trade Technologies. Finnegan has
`represented -- Finnegan has represented TD
`Ameritrade for 15 years. Throughout that period
`there has been times of inactivity, but the conduct
`of the parties was that the attorney-client
`relationship was ongoing for the last 15 years. TD
`Ameritrade has always considered Finnegan its
`attorneys.
` Now, at the beginning of the
`relationship between Finnegan and, at the time,
`Ameritrade, Inc -- now it's TD Ameritrade -- there
`was a representation or engagement letter sent from
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 8 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Finnegan to Ameritrade, and that representation
`letter was augmented with a line that says "subject
`to the retention and billing policy of TD
`Ameritrade."
` Now, that incorporates our reference,
`that retention and billing policy. Now, that
`policy was forwarded to Finnegan periodically over
`the last 15 years. The last time in fact was April
`of this year. And that policy has never been
`objected to by Finnegan, has never been commented
`on by Finnegan to the best of our knowledge. There
`has been no suggestions to changes.
` And that policy specifically states that
`Finnegan cannot be or any counsel representing TD
`Ameritrade cannot be adverse in any way to TD
`Ameritrade while it is -- while TD Ameritrade is a
`current client. And so the issue here is whether
`or not TD Ameritrade was a current client of
`Finnegan while it also represented Trade
`Technologies.
` Now, on some sequence of some events, in
`late April early May of this year TD Ameritrade
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 9 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`told Trade Technologies in a concurrent litigation
`that it planned on filing the five CBMs that are
`before us today. On May 19th to 20th those CBMs
`were filed against Trade Technologies and on May
`27th Finnegan attempted to disengage representing
`TD Ameritrade with no prior notice. We believe --
`but Finnegan, again, will not confirm this -- that
`Trade Technologies approached Finnegan prior to May
`27th.
` Now, Finnegan was not up front with TD
`Ameritrade when it provided this letter to
`disengage. First it was a phone call and then a
`letter to disengage. And general counsel asked
`specifically whether or not there was any ethical
`or legal matter that caused them to attempt to
`disengage and none was provided. They simply said
`that this was just to clean up the account and so
`that Finnegan could move on.
` We believe this is a breach of
`Finnegan's ethical fiduciary duties to TD
`Ameritrade. But importantly on -- when Finnegan
`attempted to disengage on or about the 27th or 28th
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 10 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`of May, there were active matters pending for TD
`Ameritrade. Those include a trademark application
`that had not issued yet; it included a take-down
`campaign for a website that Finnegan had been
`monitoring to make sure that the website would
`continue to be kept down; and it also included
`watch notices that Finnegan periodically watched
`trademarks to make sure TD Ameritrade's trademarks
`were not in violation.
` In regard to the trademark application,
`Finnegan's own representation letter said that work
`would be substantially complete when a trademark or
`patent application issues. The trademark
`application, SnapTicket, had not issued. And there
`was still ongoing legal work that potentially could
`be done. Anything could happen with an
`application. And TD Ameritrade was counting on
`Finnegan to make sure that that application in fact
`issued.
` In regard to the take-down notices,
`Finnegan's own e-mails to TD Ameritrade showed that
`they had indicated that they had taken -- gotten
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 11 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`the website taken down, that they were going to
`periodically check, and that they were going to
`check the site again in about a month. And on June
`5th of this year they sent one last e-mail that
`said -- and I quote -- "We did one last check.
`Site is still down. Looks like we can close this
`one out."
` This is evidence to show that the
`relationship was still ongoing, they were doing
`work for TD Ameritrade and that the relationship
`had not closed.
` Now -- so really the fundamental
`question here is whether or not when TD Ameritrade
`was a current client of Finnegan did they represent
`Trade Technologies. And based on the
`circumstantial evidence the answer is yes.
` Only Finnegan has access to the
`information that we now seek to confirm that they
`actually represented Trade Technologies while TD
`Ameritrade was a current client. And so we would
`seek some limited discovery in order to confirm our
`suspicions.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 12 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Can you please be more
`specific as far as which ethical rules in
`particular you are claiming that the counsel to the
`Patent Owner has violated?
` MR. SOKOHL: So obviously one of the
`things we were doing is asking for authorization to
`file a brief to outline the different rules. But
`there are two rules we are concerned about. Number
`one, first of all, the agreement between the
`parties was that -- as part of the retention policy
`was that Finnegan could not be adverse in any way
`to TD Ameritrade. And so they violated that
`agreement.
` In addition, Rule 1.7 we believe of the
`ABA rules is also violated. I mean, this is a
`classic hot potato issue in regard to a firm taking
`on a more lucrative client and firing a client
`solely to take on the more lucrative client.
` But just to expand, I mean, we would try
`to expand upon that in our briefs. So the point of
`today is to see if we can move forward.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you. Do you have
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 13 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`anything else to add?
` MR. SOKOHL: I think that's a fairly
`good summary at this point.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: It was 1.7, correct?
` MR. SOKOHL: I believe so. Yes. Yup.
`Yup.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Patent Owner, we will
`hear from you now.
` MS. ARNER: Thank you, Your Honor. I
`would like to just make one quick comment regarding
`the discovery request, I guess, that counsel for
`Petitioner referenced and then I'll turn it over to
`Sean to address the qualification issues. But the
`Petitioner said that Finnegan has refused to
`give -- I guess dates is what they said and that
`they were seeking limited discovery.
` And I just wanted to clarify that we've
`received two additional discovery requests from the
`Petitioner and the first one was not very limited.
`It was seeking "Testimony, documents and written
`discovery such as interrogatories related to the
`extent and timing of your firm's representation of
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 14 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`the two parties, including billing records,
`conflict checks, other internal documents and
`communications and communications with the
`parties."
` That was the first request we received.
`And then later we received a request for two dates
`which they said was the additional discovery they
`needed at this point indicating that by providing
`those dates then there would be perhaps a lead-in
`to more extensive discovery as they first
`requested.
` So talking about whether or not limited
`discovery is appropriate, I don't think limited is
`really what they have been looking for.
` As to the substance --
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Hold on for a second.
`As of right now, Petitioner, are you making a motion
`regarding a limited discovery? We're still on the
`motion to authorize qualification, right? Correct?
` MR. SOKOHL: That is correct.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Right. So Patent Owner,
`could you address that issue?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 15 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MS. ARNER: Sure. Yes. Of course. And
`Sean, I'll turn it over to you for that.
` MR. SELEGUE: Sure. This is Sean
`SeLegue from Arnold & Porter representing the
`Finnegan Henderson law firm.
` Really I think the issues here are much
`more simple than Patent Owner's counsel set out.
`So there are two relevant rules. There's the
`Former Client Rule, which is Model Rule 1.9, which
`says that a law firm may take on a matter adverse
`to a former client that is not substantially
`related to the firm's prior work for that client.
`And then there is the Current Client Rule, which
`opposing counsel mentioned. That's Rule 1.7.
` Let me start with Rule 1.9 because that
`really is the crux of the matter. There is no
`dispute at this point that TD Ameritrade is a
`former client of Finnegan's. It became a former
`client under the terms of the engagement agreement
`when the last and final trademark application that
`Finnegan was handling to TD Ameritrade was
`published for opposition and no opposition was
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 16 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`filed on May 15th.
` Finnegan did no more substantive work on
`that mark. And under the terms of the engagement
`agreement the parties agreed that Finnegan's
`engagement would terminate when its last
`substantive work was completed for TD Ameritrade.
` And so TD Ameritrade has always focused
`on this trademark matter as the basis for why it
`believes Finnegan was still its counsel, which
`Finnegan confirmed on May 28th that all of its work
`had been completed.
` So the reality is that TD Ameritrade is
`a former client of Finnegan. There is absolutely
`no dispute between the parties as the
`correspondence reflects that the current matter is
`completely unrelated to the work that Finnegan
`previously did for TD Ameritrade. And therefore,
`under the Former Client Rule Finnegan is permitted
`to take on this matter.
` And it's very important to recognize
`that Trade Technologies' interests in choosing its
`counsel must be given weight, including the ability
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 17 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`to choose counsel who have experience in the very
`specialized sort of proceeding before this
`tribunal.
` Some of the other issues that counsel
`raised are new. This watch notice issue is a new
`issue. It's a red herring. A paralegal at
`Finnegan would check on a weekly basis a watch list
`for TD Ameritrade and there was no substantive work
`going on regarding that engagement on May 28th.
` And this take-down campaign matter also
`is addressed in the correspondence. That work was
`completed months before Finnegan confirmed on May
`28th that it was disengaging from TD Ameritrade and
`would not accept any more work.
` So while Finnegan had done work for TD
`Ameritrade for a long time, the big picture is that
`by the date -- by May 28th of this year, the work
`had dwindled to a very small amount and Finnegan
`had wrapped up all of its work for TD Ameritrade.
`And so when Trade Technologies asked to be
`represented by Finnegan, Finnegan was entitled to
`take on that representation and did not begin the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 18 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`representation until June 6th, which was well after
`the substantive work for TD Ameritrade was
`completed.
` And if Your Honors look at the text of
`Rule 1.7 and 1.9 -- pardon me -- of Rule 1.7 of the
`concurrent representation rule, it speaks about
`representation beginning, not preliminary inquiries
`or whatnot. So all the interest by TD Ameritrade
`in when Trade Technologies first contacted Finnegan
`is legally irrelevant because under the Current
`Client Rule the court would only look to when
`Finnegan actually began representing Trade
`Technologies.
` So just to sum up, TD Ameritrade is a
`former client. There is no dispute that under the
`Former Client Rule Finnegan is not disqualified.
`And under Rule 1.7, which TD Ameritrade is relying
`on, TD Ameritrade is simply not a current client.
`There has been no concurrent conflict of interest,
`no date on which Finnegan represented both TD
`Ameritrade in some matters and Trade Technologies
`in a matter adverse to TD Ameritrade.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 19 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` So the court should not allow this
`motion to be filed.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Okay. We've heard from
`both the parties. We have a couple questions.
`First, for Petitioner, do you think that the work
`performed by Finnegan and in the current matter are
`substantially the same? Or related matters?
` MR. SOKOHL: They are not. We would
`agree that the work previously done is not
`substantially related to this matter.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right. At this time
`is TD Ameritrade a former client of Finnegan's?
` MR. SOKOHL: As of today?
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: As of today.
` MR. SOKOHL: I believe the answer to
`that would be yes, that Finnegan has disengaged and
`the work that Finnegan had with them has been
`transferred to other firms. And so as of today,
`yes, they would be a former --
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Finnegan is not handling
`any matters for TD Ameritrade as of today?
` MR. SOKOHL: To the best of my
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 20 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`knowledge, that is correct. Yup.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: So just to confirm, that
`it's your position that they are -- have misconduct
`that they were violating a contractual agreement
`between the parties and they violated Rule 1.7 on
`the concurrent client?
` MR. SOKOHL: Correct.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you. So let's move
`on to the next issue. Petitioner, are you asking
`us to authorize motion for discovery on the issues
`of the qualification of the counsel?
` MR. SOKOHL: Yes. And let me tell you
`why, if I may.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Yes.
` MR. SOKOHL: So Mr. SeLegue make a made
`that statement that they did not begin the
`representation of Trade Technologies until June
`6th. If in fact that's true then we would concur
`that there's no issue here. But that's what we
`need to know. And it's all in the -- you know,
`that's not --
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Why do you think that's
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 21 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`not true if he just told you? He just told you
`that today?
` MR. SOKOHL: Because I don't know what
`he means by no representation. We would need to
`know whether or not Finnegan, for instance,
`performed any type of analysis, strategizing,
`planning, regarding these CBMs prior to June 6th.
` What we do know is that there were
`representation letters that went out on June 3rd
`from Finnegan to Trade Technologies and I believe
`Trade Technologies may have signed that on or about
`June 6th. I don't have the exact date in front of
`me.
` But the question is whether or not any
`work had been performed relating to these CBMs
`prior to that. And I think if we could resolve
`those issues then either this whole matter does go
`away, or it makes it more acute.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Patent owners?
` MR. SELEGUE: Yes, Your Honor. So --
`well, that's very helpful. I think that really
`narrows the issues before the Court because the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 22 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`fact is that the representation did begin on June
`6th. That's when Trade Technologies signed the
`engagement letter with Finnegan. And the discovery
`that the Patent Owner is seeking would not bear on
`when the representation began.
` So as I understand it, the Patent Owner
`is seeking information about, you know, any and all
`contacts that Trade Technologies had had with
`Finnegan prior to the date the representation
`began. And that would not be relevant under Model
`Rule 1.7, which, as I mentioned earlier, finds a
`concurrent conflict of interest in a firm
`representing two clients only when actual
`representation is going on.
` If there is merely an inquiry from a
`potential client, that is not representation. And
`the Model Rules distinguish very clearly between
`potential clients and actual clients. So, for
`example, if the Court were to look at Model Rule
`1.10, there are differing rules about a potential
`client who had come to a law firm to talk about
`potential representation.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 23 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` So those communications, for example,
`are still subject to attorney-client privilege even
`thought the representation hasn't begun and no
`relationship has been formed and are recognizing
`that an inquiry from a potential client is of less
`significance.
` There are more limited disqualification
`rules for potential clients, which is not directly
`relevant here. What's relevant here is that the
`ethics rules clearly distinguish between contact
`between a potential client and a law firm and then
`the law firm's actual undertaking of a
`representation on behalf of the client which turns
`a potential client into an actual client.
` So the key date is when the
`representation actually began and that is June 5th
`as confirmed by the written engagement agreement.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you. I think we
`understander your side, both of your positions on
`this issue. Let's move on to the next one.
` Moving on to the request that the Patent
`Owner sent to us, you're requesting leave to
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 24 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`present a live demo of the patent invention before
`the Patent Owner's preliminary response.
` MS. ARNER: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
`The Patent Owner in preparing its preliminary
`response to the petition needs to make a showing
`under 35 U.S.C. § 323 of reasons that no post-grant
`review should be instituted. And here we think
`there are some very unique reasons based on the
`nature of the invention, the claims covering a
`graphical user interface and devices and methods of
`operating or methods of how the graphical user
`interfaces and devices operate.
` And we have found in the past with these
`patents that a demonstration of the patented
`invention is very useful. A demonstration was used
`in the prosecution before the USPTO and also in the
`European Patent Office where the examiners were
`considering whether the patents were business
`methods which are not patentable in Europe and also
`the technical effect of the invention.
` We have found in the past that it was
`useful given the unique nature of the invention to
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 25 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`include a demonstration, a technical tutorial, if
`you will, on the invention. And we think that
`including it here with our preliminary response
`will enable us to show under Section 323 that it's
`a very clear-cut case here that this is not a
`covered business method patent, that it is a
`technological invention, which are the showings
`that the Patent Owner needs to make in its
`preliminary response.
` We did -- before this call we spoke with
`the Petitioner and mentioned that we were going to
`approach the Board with this request and I'll let
`the Petitioner speak for itself. It didn't take a
`position during our call.
` But we would note that in the course of
`these proceedings the Patent Owner is able to
`include preexisting evidence, not new testamentary
`evidence, but preexisting evidence, as exhibits
`with its preliminary response. And we think that
`this would work in a very similar way and the
`Board's rules would provide Petitioner with
`appropriate opportunities to respond as needed.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 26 of 48
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`July 17, 2014
`
`27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Petitioner, we'll hear
`from you now.
` MR. SOKOHL: So, first of all, in
`regards to the live demo, this is the very first
`time we heard about the live demo was last night
`when we received an e-mail that was sent to the
`Board. That was not discussed, E

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