`
`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
`_____________________
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`TDA 1033
`CBM2014-00135
`
`
`
`
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`Petitioners TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., TD Ameritrade, Inc., and TD
`
`Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp. (“Petitioners”) object to the admissibility of the
`
`following evidence Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“Patent Owner”)
`
`submitted before the institution of the trial. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64. Petitioners ask the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board to deny the admission and consideration of the
`
`following documents on the following bases:
`
`
`Trading Tech Exhibit 2002 - PTAB Trail Blog
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, written description of the invention,
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, indefiniteness of the claims,
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Trading Tech Exhibit 2003 - Emails between Parties Relating to Hilmert
`
`Memo
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, written description of the invention,
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, indefiniteness of the claims,
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Trading Tech Exhibit 2005 - TTI v. BCG Docket No. 409 Defendant’s Reply
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`Trading Tech Exhibit 2007 - Trading Tech slide presentation Tutorial
`
`2014.02.19
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, written description of the invention,
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, indefiniteness of the claims,
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document to prove
`
`the content of the original document, Petitioners object to this document as not
`
`being an original document under FRE 1002, an authentic duplicate under FRE
`
`1003, nor a document that falls under any exceptions to the original-document
`
`requirement, including those of FRE 1004.
`
`Petitioners object to this document under FRE 1006 as an improper
`
`summary because Patent Owner has not shown that the contents of the original
`
`cannot be conveniently examined in court nor made the original or duplicates
`
`available for examination or copying.
`
`Petitioners object to the document to the extent it offers opinion under FRE
`
`701 - 703. The declarant is not qualified to offer expert testimony, the testimony is
`
`not based on sufficient facts or data, and there is no indication that declarant has
`
`the expertise necessary to apply the law to the facts as would be necessary to opine
`
`under FRE 702. Further, there is no indication that the declarant based those
`
`opinions on facts or data upon which an expert in the relevant field would
`
`reasonably rely. FRE 703. Further, testimony at these paragraphs falls outside
`
`acceptable lay opinion testimony under FRE 701. A party may not evade the
`
`expert witness requirements of FRE 702 by simply designating the testimony as
`
`lay testimony under FRE 701.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`Petitioners object to the document for lack of foundation. Patent Owner has
`
`not shown that the declarant has personal knowledge of the subject matter of the
`
`testimony as required by FRE 602.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as an improper demonstrative. Patent
`
`Owner has not established a proper foundation for the evidence set forth in the
`
`document.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`Trading Tech Exhibit 2010 -2nd Corrected Expert Report of C. Thomas
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, written description of the invention,
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, indefiniteness of the claims,
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Petitioners object to the document to the extent it offers opinion under FRE
`
`701 - 703. The declarant is not qualified to offer expert testimony in this
`
`proceeding, the testimony is not based on sufficient facts or data, and there is no
`
`indication that declarant has the expertise necessary to apply the law to the facts as
`
`would be necessary to opine under FRE 702. Further, there is no indication that the
`
`declarant based those opinions on facts or data upon which an expert in the
`
`relevant field would reasonably rely, as any facts or data that the testimony is
`
`based on have not been submitted as exhibits. FRE 703. Further, testimony at these
`
`paragraphs falls outside acceptable lay opinion testimony under FRE 701. A party
`
`may not evade the expert witness requirements of FRE 702 by simply designating
`
`the testimony as lay testimony under FRE 701.
`
`Petitioners object to the document for lack of foundation. Patent Owner has
`
`not shown that the declarant has personal knowledge of the subject matter of the
`
`testimony as required by FRE 602.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`Trading Tech Exhibit 2011 - Trial Transcript of Proceedings Vol. 4-A
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Trading Tech Exhibit 2012 - Demonstrative Video
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, written description of the invention,
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, indefiniteness of the claims,
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document to prove
`
`the content of the original document, Petitioners object to this document as not
`
`being an original document under FRE 1002, an authentic duplicate under FRE
`
`1003, nor a document that falls under any exceptions to the original-document
`
`requirement, including those of FRE 1004.
`
`Petitioners object to this document under FRE 1006 as an improper
`
`summary because Patent Owner has not shown that the contents of the original
`
`cannot be conveniently examined in court nor made the original or duplicates
`
`available for examination or copying.
`
`Petitioners object to the document to the extent it offers opinion under FRE
`
`701 - 703. The declarant is not qualified to offer expert testimony, the testimony is
`
`not based on sufficient facts or data, and there is no indication that declarant has
`
`the expertise necessary to apply the law to the facts as would be necessary to opine
`
`under FRE 702. Further, there is no indication that the declarant based those
`
`opinions on facts or data upon which an expert in the relevant field would
`
`reasonably rely. FRE 703. Further, testimony at these paragraphs falls outside
`
`acceptable lay opinion testimony under FRE 701. A party may not evade the
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`expert witness requirements of FRE 702 by simply designating the testimony as
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`lay testimony under FRE 701.
`
`Petitioners object to the document for lack of foundation. Patent Owner has
`
`not shown that the declarant has personal knowledge of the subject matter of the
`
`testimony as required by FRE 602.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as an improper demonstrative. Patent
`
`Owner has not established a proper foundation for the evidence set forth in the
`
`document.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`Trading Tech Exhibit 2013 - Blumfield and Kemp Original Design
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, written description of the invention,
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, indefiniteness of the claims,
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Trading Tech Exhibit 2014 - Demonstrative Video
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, written description of the invention,
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, indefiniteness of the claims,
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document to prove
`
`the content of the original document, Petitioners object to this document as not
`
`being an original document under FRE 1002, an authentic duplicate under FRE
`
`1003, nor a document that falls under any exceptions to the original-document
`
`requirement, including those of FRE 1004.
`
`Petitioners object to this document under FRE 1006 as an improper
`
`summary because Patent Owner has not shown that the contents of the original
`
`cannot be conveniently examined in court nor made the original or duplicates
`
`available for examination or copying.
`
`Petitioners object to the document to the extent it offers opinion under FRE
`
`701 - 703. The declarant is not qualified to offer expert testimony, the testimony is
`
`not based on sufficient facts or data, and there is no indication that declarant has
`
`the expertise necessary to apply the law to the facts as would be necessary to opine
`
`under FRE 702. Further, there is no indication that the declarant based those
`
`opinions on facts or data upon which an expert in the relevant field would
`
`reasonably rely. FRE 703. Further, testimony at these paragraphs falls outside
`
`acceptable lay opinion testimony under FRE 701. A party may not evade the
`
`expert witness requirements of FRE 702 by simply designating the testimony as
`
`lay testimony under FRE 701.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`Petitioners object to the document for lack of foundation. Patent Owner has
`
`not shown that the declarant has personal knowledge of the subject matter of the
`
`testimony as required by FRE 602.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as an improper demonstrative. Patent
`
`Owner has not established a proper foundation for the evidence set forth in the
`
`document.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`Trading Tech Exhibit 2015 - X-Trader
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, written description of the invention,
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, indefiniteness of the claims,
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Trading Tech Exhibit 2016 - Declaration of David F. Anthony
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, written description of the invention,
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, indefiniteness of the claims,
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Petitioners object to the document to the extent it offers opinion under FRE
`
`701 - 703. The declarant is not qualified to offer expert testimony, the testimony is
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`not based on sufficient facts or data, and there is no indication that declarant has
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`the expertise necessary to apply the law to the facts as would be necessary to opine
`
`under FRE 702. Further, there is no indication that the declarant based those
`
`opinions on facts or data upon which an expert in the relevant field would
`
`reasonably rely. FRE 703. Further, testimony at these paragraphs falls outside
`
`acceptable lay opinion testimony under FRE 701. A party may not evade the expert
`
`witness requirements of FRE 702 by simply designating the testimony as lay
`
`testimony under FRE 701.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`Trading Tech Exhibit 2017 - Declaration of Pace Beattie
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, written description of the invention,
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, indefiniteness of the claims,
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Petitioners object to the document to the extent it offers opinion under FRE
`
`701 - 703. The declarant is not qualified to offer expert testimony, the testimony is
`
`not based on sufficient facts or data, and there is no indication that declarant has
`
`the expertise necessary to apply the law to the facts as would be necessary to opine
`
`under FRE 702. Further, there is no indication that the declarant based those
`
`opinions on facts or data upon which an expert in the relevant field would
`
`reasonably rely. FRE 703. Further, testimony at these paragraphs falls outside
`
`acceptable lay opinion testimony under FRE 701. A party may not evade the expert
`
`witness requirements of FRE 702 by simply designating the testimony as lay
`
`testimony under FRE 701.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`Trading Tech Exhibit 2018 - Declaration of Thomas Burns
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, written description of the invention,
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, indefiniteness of the claims,
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Petitioners object to the document to the extent it offers opinion under FRE
`
`701 - 703. The declarant is not qualified to offer expert testimony, the testimony is
`
`not based on sufficient facts or data, and there is no indication that declarant has
`
`the expertise necessary to apply the law to the facts as would be necessary to opine
`
`under FRE 702. Further, there is no indication that the declarant based those
`
`opinions on facts or data upon which an expert in the relevant field would
`
`reasonably rely. FRE 703. Further, testimony at these paragraphs falls outside
`
`acceptable lay opinion testimony under FRE 701. A party may not evade the expert
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`witness requirements of FRE 702 by simply designating the testimony as lay
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`testimony under FRE 701.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`Trading Tech Exhibit 2019 - Declaration of Ray Cahnman
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, written description of the invention,
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, indefiniteness of the claims,
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`Petitioners object to the document to the extent it offers opinion under FRE
`
`701 - 703. The declarant is not qualified to offer expert testimony, the testimony is
`
`not based on sufficient facts or data, and there is no indication that declarant has
`
`the expertise necessary to apply the law to the facts as would be necessary to opine
`
`under FRE 702. Further, there is no indication that the declarant based those
`
`opinions on facts or data upon which an expert in the relevant field would
`
`reasonably rely. FRE 703. Further, testimony at these paragraphs falls outside
`
`acceptable lay opinion testimony under FRE 701. A party may not evade the expert
`
`witness requirements of FRE 702 by simply designating the testimony as lay
`
`testimony under FRE 701.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`Trading Tech Exhibit 2020 - Declaration of David Clark
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, written description of the invention,
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, indefiniteness of the claims,
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Petitioners object to the document to the extent it offers opinion under FRE
`
`701 - 703. The declarant is not qualified to offer expert testimony, the testimony is
`
`not based on sufficient facts or data, and there is no indication that declarant has
`
`the expertise necessary to apply the law to the facts as would be necessary to opine
`
`under FRE 702. Further, there is no indication that the declarant based those
`
`opinions on facts or data upon which an expert in the relevant field would
`
`reasonably rely. FRE 703. Further, testimony at these paragraphs falls outside
`
`acceptable lay opinion testimony under FRE 701. A party may not evade the expert
`
`witness requirements of FRE 702 by simply designating the testimony as lay
`
`testimony under FRE 701.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`
`Trading Tech Exhibit 2021 - Declaration of David Ellis
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, written description of the invention,
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, indefiniteness of the claims,
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Petitioners object to the document to the extent it offers opinion under FRE
`
`701 - 703. The declarant is not qualified to offer expert testimony, the testimony is
`
`not based on sufficient facts or data, and there is no indication that declarant has
`
`the expertise necessary to apply the law to the facts as would be necessary to opine
`
`under FRE 702. Further, there is no indication that the declarant based those
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`
`opinions on facts or data upon which an expert in the relevant field would
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`reasonably rely. FRE 703. Further, testimony at these paragraphs falls outside
`
`acceptable lay opinion testimony under FRE 701. A party may not evade the expert
`
`witness requirements of FRE 702 by simply designating the testimony as lay
`
`testimony under FRE 701.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`Trading Tech Exhibit 2022 - Declaration of David Feltes
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, written description of the invention,
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, indefiniteness of the claims,
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`
`
`- 22 -
`
`
`
`
`
`TD Ameritrade’s Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2014-00135
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Petitioners object to the document to the extent it offers opinion under FRE
`
`701 - 703. The declarant is not qualified to offer expert testimony, the testimony is
`
`not based on sufficient facts or data, and there is no indication that declarant has
`
`the expertise necessary to apply the law to the facts as would be necessary to opine
`
`under FRE 702. Further, there is no indication that the declarant based those
`
`opinions on facts or data upon which an expert in the relevant field would
`
`reasonably rely. FRE 703. Further, testimony at these paragraphs falls outside
`
`acceptable lay opinion testimony under FRE 701. A party may not evade the expert
`
`witness requirements of FRE 702 by simply designating the testimony as lay
`
`testimony under FRE 701
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
