Denying Leave to File Motion for Additional Discovery
`CBM2014-00131, 133, 135, 136, 137
`
`Posted on August 18, 2014
`
`Share
`
`Takeaway: Alleging that Petitioner was in possession of a memorandum regarding prior art prepared before the CBM review, that
`the memorandum may contain attorney work product, and that there are other parties in a related litigation, was not enough to
`authorize the filing of a motion for additional discovery on the issue of real-parties-in-interest.
`
`In its Order, the Board denied Patent Owner’s request to file a motion for additional discovery related to whether other parties are
`real-parties-in-interest. The Parties agreed to, and Petitioner answered, three initial questions related to the issue, but Petitioner
`refused to agree to two additional follow-up questions.
`
`Patent Owner argued that certain facts related to a memorandum, which was prepared by a law firm that was discussed in the
`Petition and during a telephone call, suggested that “perhaps” Petitioner and other unnamed parties are part of a joint defense
`group. Petitioner explained that the memo was prepared in 2005, and was not created for these proceedings. Further, Petitioner
`explained that the memorandum may be work product of the law firm and Petitioner, and that no other party provided work
`product for the Petitions in these proceedings.
`
`According to the Board, Patent Owner did not sufficiently explain how it could demonstrate “good cause as to why the discovery
`is needed” to justify a motion for further additional discovery. Thus, the Board found that Patent Owner’s explanation, based
`mainly upon Petitioner’s possession of the 2005 memorandum and Petitioner’s “work product” statement, is mere speculation
`that it will discover information regarding an alleged joint defense group between Petitioner and other unnamed entities.
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., TD Ameritrade, Inc., and TD Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp. v. Trading Technologies
`International, Inc., CBM2013-00131; CBM2013-00133; CBM2013-00135; CBM2013-00136; CBM2013-00137
`Paper 11: Order on Conduct of the Proceedings
`Dated: August 14, 2014
`Patents 7,533,056; 7,676,411; 6,772,132; 6,766,304; 7,685,055
`Before: Sally C. Medley, Meredith C. Petravick, and Philip J. Hoffmann
`Written by: Petravick
`
`This entry was posted in Discovery, Real Parties-in-Interest. Bookmark the permalink [http://ptabtrialblog.com/denying-
`leave-file-motion-additional-discovery-cbm2014-00131-133-135-136-137/] .
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2002
`TD Ameritrade v. Trading Technologies
`CBM2014-00133
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`