`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. ______
`Filed: June 12, 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 CBM2014-00135
`Patent 6,772,132
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Under 37 C.F.R. 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00135
`Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Preliminary Statement ..................................................................................... 1
`
`Standard ........................................................................................................... 1
`
`III. Dr. Román’s Supplemental Declaration (Ex. 1026) Should be
`Excluded .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`TT Timely Objected to the Supplemental Declaration, Which
`Was Relied Upon in TD’s Reply .......................................................... 1
`
`B. Dr. Román’s Supplemental Declaration Lacks Relevance Under
`FRE 402 and is Prejudicial under FRE 403 .......................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00135
`Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`I.
`
`Preliminary Statement
`
`Patent Owner Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”), moves to
`
`exclude the Supplemental Declaration of Kendyl A. Román in Support of
`
`Petitioner TD Ameritrade et al.’s (“TD” or “Petitioner”) Reply for Covered
`
`Business Method Review of U.S. Patent 6,772,132 (Ex. 1026, “Supplemental
`
`Declaration”) because portions of the Exhibit lack relevance (FRE 402), since they
`
`exceed the proper scope of Petitioner’s Reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), and are
`
`prejudicial to Patent Owner, since Patent Owner is unable to respond to them (FRE
`
`403).
`
`II.
`
`Standard
`
`A Motion to Exclude must (a) identify where in the record the objection was
`
`made, (b) identify where in the record the evidence sought to be excluded was
`
`relied upon by an opponent, (c) address objections to exhibits in numerical order,
`
`and (d) explain the objection. Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 78,767
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`III. Dr. Román’s Supplemental Declaration (Ex. 1026) Should be Excluded
`A. TT Timely Objected to the Supplemental Declaration, Which Was
`Relied Upon in TD’s Reply
`
`TT objected to Exhibit 1026 in objections served June 5, 2015. Paper 43. TD
`
`relies upon the Supplemental Declaration (Ex. 1026) for its 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`grounds. E.g., Reply, Paper 42 at 4, 7, 8, 11, 15, and 23.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00135
`Patent No. 6,772,132
`B. Dr. Román’s Supplemental Declaration Lacks Relevance Under
`FRE 402 and is Prejudicial under FRE 403
`
`Rather than further explain the original arguments set out in the Petition,
`
`TD’s Reply raises several issues for the first time, supported by Dr. Román’s
`
`Supplemental Declaration. Thus, instead of narrowing the issues before the Board,
`
`TD’s Reply expands them. 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. The Board should not allow TD to
`
`propose entirely new theories of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101 when those
`
`arguments could have been presented in its Petition.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) requires that “[a] petition . . . must include ‘[a] full
`
`statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of
`
`the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law,
`
`rules, and precedent.’” TD’s late evidence to support new “reasons for the relief
`
`requested” and new alleged “material facts” lacks relevance under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`402, going beyond TD’s originally proposed “reasons for the relief requested.”
`
`The new evidence prejudices Patent Owner under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because
`
`its own experts cannot now respond to the new observations and opinions, and
`
`Patent Owner is precluded from addressing the Supplemental Declaration in its
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00135
`Patent No. 6,772,132
`Patent Owner Response. See Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain
`
`Performance Plastics Rencol Limited, IPR2014-00309, Paper 83 at 13. The new
`
`evidence is also a waste of time, confuses the issues, and could cause undue delay
`
`(Fed. R. Evid. 403) because it unnecessarily expands the issues for Oral Hearing,
`
`and presents multiple theories (legal and claim construction) that have not been
`
`fully briefed for consideration in the Board’s Final Written Decision.
`
`For at least the following reason with respect to the instituted
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 grounds, the Supplemental Declaration is improper:
`
`Citing to the Supplemental Declaration at ¶ 4, TD argues for the first time
`
`that “[a]side from the recitation of conventional and generic computer terms and
`
`processes. . . claim 1 could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen-
`
`and-paper with little difficulty because the claim requires plotting only two data
`
`points.” See Reply at 4. The Supplemental Declaration contains similar arguments
`
`in ¶ 3. These new arguments could have been included in Petitioner’s original
`
`paper, but were not, and they raise claim construction and factual issues that the
`
`Patent Owner cannot now brief. Dr. Román’s new conclusions and supporting
`
`statements in ¶¶ 3 and 4 are therefore irrelevant under Rule 402 and prejudicial, a
`
`waste of time, confuse the issues, and are likely to cause undue delay under Rule
`
`403.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00135
`Patent No. 6,772,132
`Citing to the Supplemental Declaration at ¶¶ 4 and 5, TD argues for the first
`
`time specifically that “(i) setting and selecting parameter values and sending orders
`
`are merely conventional data-gathering steps, and (ii) displaying data along a static
`
`price axis is a well-understood, routine, conventional practice in both paper and
`
`electronic data displays” (Reply at 7) and that “a static price axis is a well-known
`
`conventional feature in both paper and electronic displays for such data” (Reply at
`
`8). These new arguments could have been included in Petitioner’s original paper,
`
`but were not, and they raise claim construction and factual issues that the Patent
`
`Owner cannot now brief. Dr. Román’s new conclusions and supporting statements
`
`in ¶¶ 4 and 5 are therefore irrelevant under Rule 402 and prejudicial, a waste of
`
`time, confuse the issues, and are likely to cause undue delay under Rule 403.
`
`In its Petition, TD nowhere relied on expert testimony (by Dr. Román or
`
`otherwise) to support its 35 U.S.C. § 101 grounds. See Pet. at 12-15. Evidence that
`
`TD intended to rely upon to establish its prima facie case should have been
`
`submitted with its Petition. See Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain
`
`Performance Plastics Rencol Limited, IPR2014-00309, Paper 83 at 13. The
`
`Supplemental Declaration raises claim construction issues and alleged facts
`
`regarding what was routine and conventional, which Patent Owner cannot now
`
`brief. The Supplemental Declaration, in its entirety, is irrelevant under Rule 402
`
`and prejudicial, a waste of time, confuses the issues, and likely to cause undue
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00135
`Patent No. 6,772,132
`delay under Rule 403. Furthermore, TD has not cited to ¶¶ 6-7 or 10, which are
`
`therefore irrelevant under Rule 402 for this additional reason.
`
`Dated: June 12, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joshua L. Goldberg/
`Joshua L. Goldberg, Backup Counsel
`Registration No. 59,369
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude was served on June 12, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Lisa C. Hines/
`Lisa C. Hines
`Litigation Clerk
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`