`
`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