CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`August 8, 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)
` Friday, August 8, 2014
` 10:02 a.m. EST
` Teleconference before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board, Judge Meredith C. Petravick presiding, the
`proceedings being recorded stenographically by
`Cynthia J. Conforti, CSR, CRR, (License 084003064)
`of the State of Illinois, and transcribed under her
`direction.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`BOARD EXHIBIT 3002
`TD Ameritrade v. Trading Technologies
`CBM2014-00135
`
`Page 1 of 22
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`August 8, 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 22
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`August 8, 2014
`
`3
`
`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)
`
` On behalf of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board:
` MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, ESQ., PHILLIP J.
` HOFFMAN, ESQ., and SALLY MEDLEY, 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 22
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`August 8, 2014
`
`4
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont'd)
` On behalf of Trade Technologies International:
` ERIKA HARMON ARNER, ESQ.
` CORY BELL, ESQ.
` JOSH GOLDBERG, ESQ.
` Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
` Dunner, LLP
` Two Freedom Square
` 11955 Freedom Drive
` Reston, Virginia 20190-5675
` (571) 203-2700
` erika.arner@finnegan.com
` cory.bell@finnegan.com
` josh.goldberg@finnegan.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 4 of 22
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`August 8, 2014
`
`5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Good morning, this is
`Judge Petravick. With me are Judges Hoffman and
`Judge Medley.
` Could I have a roll call to see who is on
`the line?
` MS. ARNER: Good morning, your Honor. This
`is Erika Arner for -- on behalf of Trading
`Technologies, and I'm joined by Cory Bell and Josh
`Goldberg, all from Finnegan.
` MR. SOKOHL: This is Robert Sokohl and --
`representing TD Ameritrade. I'm joined by John
`Strang.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Do we have a court
`reporter on the line?
` THE REPORTER: Yes, Cynthia Conforti from
`Henderson Legal Services, Judge.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you.
` Patent Owner, you requested this call to
`discuss a motion for authorization for -- I'm sorry
`-- authorization to file a motion for additional
`discovery related to real parties' interests.
` Could you please start.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 5 of 22
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`August 8, 2014
`
`6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MS. ARNER: Yes. Thank you, your Honor.
` As we discussed briefly on our initial or
`our last call with the board, the petitions that
`were filed in this matter included an exhibit that
`was labeled an internal memo, and it was from an
`attorney at Winston & Strawn named Mr. Helmert, and
`it was labeled -- it was to the EC file that
`discusses the TSE -- TSE reference which is one of
`the references discussed in the petition.
` The memo is attached as an exhibit, or was
`filed as an exhibit. It's also cited in the
`petition and listed in the documents considered by
`Mr. Rohan, who filed an expert declaration in
`support of the petition.
` We had some questions about that document
`and worked with counsel for the petitioner, and in
`response to our initial three questions, they let
`us know that they received -- we asked where they
`had gotten the documents. They said they received
`it in response to a request for prior art and that
`they did not have permission from EC to file it.
` We had two follow-up questions for them,
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 6 of 22
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`August 8, 2014
`
`7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`and they did not provide answers to them. We --
`the parties had a call to see if we could work out
`an agreement regarding the additional information
`that we were seeking, and we were not able to reach
`agreement, and so then we have convened this call
`and we're looking really for two things to assist
`us in our preparation of our Patent Owner's
`preliminary response which is due in just under a
`month at this point.
` The first thing is compliance with the
`board's routine discovery rules regarding
`inconsistent statements. We're actually looking
`for some guidance from the board here, but it seems
`that either the rules -- the board's rules require
`the disclosure and service of any documents that
`have inconsistent statements together with the
`filing of any paper.
` And then the second thing we're looking for
`is additional discovery including the three
`questions we previously posed to help us confirm
`the request for identification of the real parties
`in interest, and I can go through a little bit of
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 7 of 22
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`August 8, 2014
`
`8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`each of those if you'd like now.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Each of the questions?
` MS. ARNER: Well, two things.
` So the first thing is the routine
`discovery, the inconsistent statement discovery,
`which is under routine discovery under the board's
`rules, and then the second is additional discovery
`related to the real-parties'-in-interest issue.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Yes.
` MS. ARNER: Okay. So the routine discovery
`is a requirement under Rule 51 of the board rules
`that require the disclosure of statements that are
`inconsistent with anything within the paper that
`was filed, so of course the petition and all the
`exhibits are papers that were filed with the board.
` Routine discovery under Rule 51 extends to
`inventors, corporate officers and persons involved
`in the preparation or filing of the documents and
`things, and the Helmert memo, which was filed with
`the board, indicates that it was prepared by
`apparently eSpeed and its counsel, and so,
`accordingly, we believe that eSpeed and its counsel
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 8 of 22
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`August 8, 2014
`
`9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`would be included in the individuals involved in
`preparing the things that were filed, and therefore
`they would have the obligation to serve any
`inconsistent statements.
` We asked whether -- TD had asked them for
`inconsistent statements, and that was one of the
`questions they wouldn't answer, but, also, we
`are -- we are aware that at least one publicly
`available document that's inconsistent, decision by
`a district court in a case involving eSpeed where
`the district court found that no reasonable jury
`could find that the TSE reference taught the claim
`elements in the patent, especially the
`single-action element, but that memo was
`involved -- it was in an eSpeed litigation, and it
`wasn't served.
` And so we're looking for the board's
`guidance on how to enforce compliance with the
`routine discovery rules that are set forth in Rule
`51.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Okay.
` MS. ARNER: And then should I go on to the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 9 of 22
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`August 8, 2014
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`additional discovery?
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Yes, please do.
` MS. ARNER: Okay. On the additional
`discovery, we have questions related to the
`fact-intensive inquiry of the real party in
`interest, and the board's guidance lays out many
`different factors that can affect who should be
`named as a real party in interest, including
`participation in a joint defense group, for
`example, and several other factors.
` And we note some specific facts that make
`us believe that we should be entitled to additional
`discovery, and those specific facts include the
`memo that was filed that named parties -- a party
`that's not involved in this petition as far as we
`know and is not listed in the petition of eSpeed,
`and also from a firm, Winston, that is not involved
`here.
` During our previous call, TD's counsel
`suggested that it may contain attorney work
`product, although they previously told us that no
`one had provided work product for the petition in
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 10 of 22
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`August 8, 2014
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`response to our first question.
` We know that we got one document in the
`eSpeed litigation that contradicts positions in the
`petition. We heard mention of attorney work
`product suggested that perhaps there was some sort
`of joint defense privilege with eSpeed or perhaps
`there are other parties, and that joint defense
`participation would be relevant.
` And there are other parties involved
`currently in the same litigation with these patents
`and TD, and they have actually filed briefs
`together, and sometimes even having joint
`representation.
` And so, you know, the combination of all of
`those facts, and given the guidance that the board
`has set forth about the facts that can go into the
`real party in interest, which is a statutory
`requirement for the petition, is why we are seeking
`the board's permission to file a motion for
`additional discovery so that we can have the
`information we need to fully respond.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right. Now, we will
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 11 of 22
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`August 8, 2014
`
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`hear from the petitioner.
` MR. SOKOHL: Great. Thank you, your Honor.
` First, I'd like to apologize for -- I have
`a cough, so I apologize to everyone on the phone.
` First of all, the memo in question, the
`Helmert memo, was a memo written by Winston &
`Strawn in 2005 during a litigation between eSpeed
`and Trading Technologies. The memo was not written
`in the context of filing a CBM. It was a document
`that merely summarizes a deposition that was taken.
` In fact, Trading Technologies was in
`attendance at that deposition, and it just
`summarizes that deposition.
` The document was provided, as counsel for
`Trading Technologies mentioned, to TD Ameritrade in
`the 2000 time -- 2010 time frame in a request for
`prior art after TD Ameritrade was sued by Trading
`Technologies.
` Again, the document itself was not created
`in furtherance of a CBM being filed.
` Ultimately, Finnegan, counsel for Trading
`Technologies, asked TD Ameritrade to answer a
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 12 of 22
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`August 8, 2014
`
`13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`number of questions related to the memo and whether
`or not in furtherance of their inquiry on real
`party in interest, and we thought that that was
`reasonable. They asked us three questions.
` Unfortunately, counsel for Trading
`Technologies left out one of the most important
`questions that they asked us. And that was:
` "Did any party other than TD Ameritrade
`provide:
` 1) Work product for the petitions."
` And we answered no.
` And B) "Comments on drafts of the
`petitions."
` Again, we answered no. Had they asked us
`whether or not anyone authorized or controlled the
`filing of petitions, we would have again answered
`"no," "no."
` The memo in question was not prepared -- it
`may be work product of Winston & Strawn and eSpeed
`in 2005, but it is related to the litigation. It
`has nothing to do with the CBMs that were
`ultimately filed, and, in fact, the memo was
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 13 of 22
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`August 8, 2014
`
`14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`written before CBMs even existed in the statute.
` So we answered those questions. That was
`insufficient for counsel for Trading Technologies
`to put this to rest, and then we believe they went
`on a fishing expedition and asked a number of
`questions that were, quote, "privileged" and we
`believe completely irrelevant to the issue of the
`real parties in interest.
` Again, nobody -- no other entity was
`authorized, controlled, reviewed for -- or provided
`work product for the CBMs that TD Ameritrade filed.
` I don't know what else to say about the
`real party in interest other than the real party in
`interest had been named.
` In regard to the inconsistent statements,
`again, first of all, this is the first time we are
`hearing about this issue. This was not discussed
`during our meet and confer. It certainly, you
`know -- I guess it relates to one of the questions
`that Finnegan was asking these questions in regard
`to the real party in interest, not inconsistent
`statements.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 14 of 22
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`August 8, 2014
`
`15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` But, again, there is no other party who was
`involved with the CBMs, and, therefore, any
`position, thought, beliefs that other parties have
`is irrelevant to what TD Ameritrade was forward on.
`We put forth the real party in interest.
` Unless there's some questions, I don't know
`what else to say about this issue.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you.
` Patent Owner, do you have anything else?
` MS. ARNER: Just briefly, yes, thank you.
` And first of all, regarding the memo itself
`and when it was written and why it was written, I'm
`not sure that's at all relevant here because the X
`part in these proceedings, the file and declaration
`of the petition considered the memo, so regardless
`of what its original purpose was, it's in these
`proceedings now.
` As far as the real-party-in-interest
`question, the board has acknowledged that it's
`heavily fact specific. It's not something that is
`a single "yes" or "no," and one of the facts, for
`example, whether there's JDG, and that was one of
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 15 of 22
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`August 8, 2014
`
`16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`the specific questions that we didn't get an answer
`to, and I'm surprised to hear Petitioner's counsel
`say that this is the first they have ever heard of
`the inconsistent statement question since that was
`a specific written question we gave to them in our
`attempts to resolve this before we came to the
`board.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right. Thank you.
` We will -- believe we understand your
`position. We will not be making a decision about
`this on the phone. We will be issuing you an order
`in due course.
` Patent Owner, could you please file the
`transcript as soon as possible in this case?
` MS. ARNER: Yes, yes, of course we will,
`your Honor, and in your considering the order in
`what we might be able to do going forward, if you
`would just -- our preliminary response is due
`September 3rd, and so if we need to seek the
`board's request for an extension, if there will be
`a prolonged period or longer period of briefing or
`anything, you know, we're open to talking more
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 16 of 22
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`August 8, 2014
`
`17
`
`about the date.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: We are mindful of when
`your preliminary is due.
` MS. ARNER: Thank you very much. Thank
`you.
` MR. SOKOHL: And your Honor?
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Yes.
` MR. SOKOHL: Just one final point.
` Counsel had mentioned that our expert had
`relied on or reviewed it. That's true except on
`the last phone call we actually asked the board to
`expunge that document because it's not relied on.
`The fact that he reviewed it, again, a document
`that was written in 2005 and summarized a
`deposition, isn't relevant.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right. Thank you.
` MR. SOKOHL: Thank you.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: We are adjourned.
` (Time noted: 10:13)
`
`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 17 of 22
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`August 8. 2014
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
`
`, Registered
`Cynthia J. Conforti
`I,
`Professional in and for the State of Illinois,
`County of Cook,
`the officer before whom the
`proceedings were taken, do hereby certify that
`the foregoing transcript is a true and correct
`record of these proceedings;
`that said
`proceed:.ngs were taken in Stenotype notes by me
`on the 8th day of August, 2014, commencing
`at 10:02 a. m. and ending at 10:13 a. m.
`I further certify that present on
`beha_f of Petitioner TD Ameritrade Holding
`Corporation, TD Ameritrade, Inc., and TD
`Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp. Were Robert E.
`Sokohl, Esq. And Jonathan M. Strang, Esq. Of
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, and present on
`behalf of Patent Owner Trade Technologies
`International,
`Inc. Were Erika H. Arner, Esq.,
`Cory Bell, Esq., and Josh Goldberg, Esq. Of
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner,
`LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I further certify that I am not related
`to, nor associated with any of the parties or
`their attorneys, nor do - have any disqualifying
`interest, personal or financial in the actions
`within.
`
`
`
`Dated this 8th day of August 2014 at
`
`Cook County, Illinois.
`
`
`
`a Wm
`
`(Reporter's signature)
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Page180f22
`
`IiendersonlgegalServices,lnc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 18 of 22
`
`

`

`
`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`
`Conference CallConference Call
`
`August 8, 2014August 8, 2014
`1
`
`A
`a.m 1:17 18:6,6
`able 7:4 16:17
`acknowledged
`15:19
`actions 18:13
`additional 5:20
`7:3,19 8:7 10:1
`10:3,12 11:20
`adjourned
`17:18
`Administrative
`3:7
`affect 10:7
`agreement 7:3,5
`Ameritrade 1:2
`1:3,3,7,7,8,11
`1:12,12 2:2,3,3
`2:7,7,8 3:9
`5:11 12:15,17
`12:22 13:8
`14:11 15:4
`18:7,7,8
`answer 9:7
`12:22 16:1
`answered 13:11
`13:14,16 14:2
`answers 7:1
`apologize 12:3,4
`apparently 8:21
`Appeal 1:1,18
`3:4
`appearing 3:2
`Arner 4:3 5:6,7
`6:1 8:3,10 9:22
`10:3 15:10
`16:15 17:4
`18:10
`art 6:20 12:17
`asked 6:18 9:5,5
`12:22 13:4,7
`13:14 14:5
`17:11
`
`asking 14:20
`assist 7:6
`associated 18:12
`attached 6:10
`attempts 16:6
`attendance
`12:12
`attorney 6:6
`10:20 11:4
`attorneys 18:13
`August 1:17
`18:5,14
`authorization
`5:19,20
`authorized
`13:15 14:10
`available 9:9
`Avenue 3:13
`aware 9:8
`B
`B 13:12
`behalf 3:4,9 4:2
`5:7 18:7,9
`beliefs 15:3
`believe 8:22
`10:12 14:4,7
`16:9
`Bell 4:4 5:8
`18:10
`bit 7:22
`board 1:1,19 3:4
`6:3 7:13 8:11
`8:15,20 11:15
`15:19 16:7
`17:11
`board's 7:11,14
`8:6 9:17 10:6
`11:19 16:20
`briefing 16:21
`briefly 6:2 15:10
`briefs 11:11
`C
`
`C 1:19 3:1,1,5
`4:1
`call 5:4,18 6:3
`7:2,5 10:19
`17:11
`Caption 1:16
`2:1
`case 1:4,8,13 2:4
`2:8 9:10 16:14
`CBM 12:9,20
`CBM2014-00...
`1:4
`CBM2014-00...
`1:8
`CBM2014-00...
`1:13
`CBM2014-00...
`2:4
`CBM2014-00...
`2:8
`CBMs 13:21
`14:1,11 15:2
`certainly 14:18
`CERTIFICA...
`18:1
`certify 18:3,6,12
`cited 6:11
`claim 9:12
`combination
`11:14
`commencing
`18:5
`Comments
`13:12
`completely 14:7
`compliance 7:10
`9:18
`confer 14:18
`confirm 7:20
`Conforti 1:20
`5:15 18:2
`considered 6:12
`15:15
`
`considering
`16:16
`Cont'd 4:1
`contain 10:20
`context 12:9
`continues 1:16
`2:1
`contradicts 11:3
`controlled 13:15
`14:10
`convened 7:5
`Cook 18:3,15
`Corp 1:3,8,12
`2:3,8 18:8
`corporate 8:17
`Corporation 1:2
`1:7,11 2:2,7
`18:7
`correct 18:4
`Cory 4:4 5:8
`18:10
`cory.bell@fin...
`4:13
`cough 12:4
`counsel 6:16
`8:21,22 10:19
`12:14,21 13:5
`14:3 16:2 17:9
`County 18:3,15
`course 8:14
`16:12,15
`court 5:13 9:10
`9:11
`created 12:19
`CRR 1:20
`CSR 1:20
`currently 11:10
`Cynthia 1:20
`5:15 18:2
`D
`date 17:1
`Dated 18:14
`day 18:5,14
`
`DC 3:14
`decision 9:9
`16:10
`declaration 6:13
`15:14
`defense 10:9
`11:6,7
`deposition
`12:10,12,13
`17:15
`different 10:7
`direction 1:21
`disclosure 7:15
`8:12
`discovery 5:21
`7:11,19 8:5,5,6
`8:7,10,16 9:19
`10:1,4,13
`11:20
`discuss 5:19
`discussed 6:2,9
`14:17
`discusses 6:8
`disqualifying
`18:13
`district 9:10,11
`document 6:15
`9:9 11:2 12:9
`12:14,19 17:12
`17:13
`documents 6:12
`6:19 7:15 8:18
`drafts 13:12
`Drive 4:9
`due 7:8 16:12,18
`17:3
`Dunner 4:7
`18:11
`
`E
`E 3:1,1,1,10 4:1
`4:1 18:8
`EC 6:7,21
`either 7:14
`
`
`
`202-220-4158202-220-4158
`
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`www.hendersonlegalservices.comwww.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 19 of 22
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`August 8, 2014
`2
`
`element 9:14
`elements 9:13
`enforce 9:18
`entitled 10:12
`entity 14:9
`Erika 4:3 5:7
`18:10
`erika.arner@...
`4:12
`especially 9:13
`eSpeed 8:21,22
`9:10,15 10:16
`11:3,6 12:7
`13:19
`Esq 3:5,6,6,10
`3:11 4:3,4,5
`18:8,8,10,10
`18:10
`EST 1:17
`example 10:10
`15:22
`exhibit 6:4,10
`6:11
`exhibits 8:15
`existed 14:1
`expedition 14:5
`expert 6:13 17:9
`expunge 17:12
`extends 8:16
`extension 16:20
`F
`
`F 3:1
`fact 12:11 13:22
`15:20 17:13
`fact-intensive
`10:5
`factors 10:7,10
`facts 10:11,13
`11:15,16 15:21
`far 10:15 15:18
`Farabow 4:6
`18:11
`file 5:20 6:7,21
`
`11:19 15:14
`16:13
`filed 6:4,11,13
`8:14,15,19 9:2
`10:14 11:11
`12:20 13:22
`14:11
`filing 7:17 8:18
`12:9 13:16
`final 17:8
`financial 18:13
`find 9:12
`Finnegan 4:6
`5:9 12:21
`14:20 18:11
`firm 10:17
`first 7:10 8:4
`11:1 12:3,5
`14:16,16 15:11
`16:3
`fishing 14:5
`follow-up 6:22
`following 1:16
`foregoing 18:4
`forth 9:19 11:16
`15:5
`forward 15:4
`16:17
`found 9:11
`Fox 3:12 18:9
`frame 12:16
`Freedom 4:8,9
`Friday 1:17
`fully 11:21
`further 18:6,12
`furtherance
`12:20 13:2
`G
`Garrett 4:6
`18:11
`given 11:15
`go 7:22 9:22
`11:16
`
`going 16:17
`Goldberg 4:5
`5:9 18:10
`Goldstein 3:12
`18:9
`Good 5:1,6
`gotten 6:19
`Great 12:2
`group 10:9
`guess 14:19
`guidance 7:13
`9:18 10:6
`11:15
`
`H
`H 18:10
`HARMON 4:3
`hear 12:1 16:2
`heard 11:4 16:3
`hearing 14:17
`heavily 15:20
`Helmert 6:6
`8:19 12:6
`help 7:20
`Henderson 4:6
`5:16 18:11
`Hoffman 3:6 5:2
`Holding 1:2,7
`1:11 2:2,7 18:7
`Holdings 1:3,8
`1:12 2:3,8 18:8
`Honor 5:6 6:1
`12:2 16:16
`17:6
`
`I
`identification
`7:21
`Illinois 1:20
`18:2,15
`important 13:6
`in-interest 8:8
`include 10:13
`included 6:4 9:1
`
`including 7:19
`10:8
`inconsistent
`7:12,16 8:5,13
`9:4,6,9 14:15
`14:21 16:4
`indicates 8:20
`individuals 9:1
`information 7:3
`11:21
`initial 6:2,17
`inquiry 10:5
`13:2
`insufficient 14:3
`interest 7:22
`10:6,8 11:17
`13:3 14:8,13
`14:14,21 15:5
`18:13
`interests 5:21
`internal 6:5
`International
`1:5,9,14 2:5,9
`4:2 18:10
`inventors 8:17
`involved 8:17
`9:1,15 10:15
`10:17 11:9
`15:2
`involving 9:10
`irrelevant 14:7
`15:4
`issue 8:8 14:7,17
`15:7
`issuing 16:11
`J
`J 1:20 3:5 18:2
`JDG 15:22
`John 5:11
`joined 5:8,11
`joint 10:9 11:6,7
`11:12
`Jonathan 3:11
`
`18:8
`Josh 4:5 5:8
`18:10
`josh.goldberg...
`4:14
`jstrang@skgf....
`3:17
`Judge 1:19 5:1,2
`5:3,13,16,17
`8:2,9 9:21 10:2
`11:22 15:8
`16:8 17:2,7,16
`17:18
`Judges 3:7 5:2
`jury 9:11
`K
`Kessler 3:12
`18:9
`know 6:18 10:16
`11:2,14 14:12
`14:19 15:6
`16:22
`
`L
`
`L 3:1
`labeled 6:5,7
`lays 10:6
`left 13:6
`Legal 5:16
`License 1:20
`line 5:5,14
`listed 6:12 10:16
`litigation 9:15
`11:3,10 12:7
`13:20
`little 7:22
`LLP 4:7 18:11
`longer 16:21
`looking 7:6,12
`7:18 9:17
`M
`M 3:11 18:8
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 20 of 22
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`August 8, 2014
`3
`
`making 16:10
`matter 6:4
`Medley 3:6 5:3
`meet 14:18
`memo 6:5,10
`8:19 9:14
`10:14 12:5,6,6
`12:8 13:1,18
`13:22 15:11,15
`mention 11:4
`mentioned
`12:15 17:9
`Meredith 1:19
`3:5
`merely 12:10
`mindful 17:2
`month 7:9
`morning 5:1,6
`motion 5:19,20
`11:19
`
`N
`N 3:1,1 4:1
`named 6:6 10:8
`10:14 14:14
`need 11:21
`16:19
`New 3:13
`note 10:11
`noted 17:19
`notes 18:5
`number 13:1
`14:5
`NW 3:13
`O
`
`O 3:1,1
`obligation 9:3
`OFFICE 1:1
`officer 18:3
`officers 8:17
`Okay 8:10 9:21
`10:3
`Online 1:3,8,12
`
`2:3,8 18:8
`open 16:22
`order 16:11,16
`original 15:16
`Owner 1:6,10
`1:15 2:6,10
`5:18 15:9
`16:13 18:9
`Owner's 7:7
`P
`P 3:1,1 4:1,1
`page 1:16
`paper 7:17 8:13
`papers 8:15
`part 15:14
`participants 3:2
`participation
`10:9 11:8
`parties 5:21 7:2
`7:21 10:14
`11:7,9 14:8
`15:3 18:12
`party 10:5,8,14
`11:17 13:3,8
`14:13,13,21
`15:1,5
`patent 1:1,1,4,6
`1:9,10,13,15
`1:18 2:4,6,9,10
`3:4,7 5:18 7:7
`9:13 15:9
`16:13 18:9
`patents 11:10
`period 16:21,21
`permission 6:21
`11:19
`personal 18:13
`persons 8:17
`petition 6:9,12
`6:14 8:14
`10:15,16,22
`11:4,18 15:15
`petitioner 1:4,8
`
`1:13 2:4,8 6:16
`12:1 18:7
`Petitioner's 16:2
`petitions 6:3
`13:10,13,16
`Petravick 1:19
`3:5 5:1,2,13,17
`8:2,9 9:21 10:2
`11:22 15:8
`16:8 17:2,7,16
`17:18
`PHILLIP 3:5
`phone 3:2 12:4
`16:11 17:11
`please 5:22 10:2
`16:13
`point 7:9 17:8
`posed 7:20
`position 15:3
`16:10
`positions 11:3
`possible 16:14
`preliminary 7:8
`16:18 17:3
`preparation 7:7
`8:18
`prepared 8:20
`13:18
`preparing 9:2
`present 18:6,9
`presiding 1:19
`previous 10:19
`previously 7:20
`10:21
`prior 6:20 12:17
`privilege 11:6
`privileged 14:6
`proceedings
`1:19 15:14,17
`18:3,4,5
`product 10:21
`10:22 11:5
`13:10,19 14:11
`
`Professional
`18:2
`prolonged 16:21
`provide 7:1 13:9
`provided 10:22
`12:14 14:10
`publicly 9:8
`purpose 15:16
`put 14:4 15:5
`Q
`question 11:1
`12:5 13:18
`15:19 16:4,5
`questions 6:15
`6:17,22 7:20
`8:2 9:7 10:4
`13:1,4,7 14:2,6
`14:19,20 15:6
`16:1
`quote 14:6
`R
`R 3:1 4:1
`reach 7:4
`real 5:21 7:21
`10:5,8 11:17
`13:2 14:8,13
`14:13,21 15:5
`real-parties 8:8
`real-party-in-i...
`15:18
`really 7:6
`reasonable 9:11
`13:4
`received 6:18,19
`record 18:4
`recorded 1:19
`reference 6:8
`9:12
`references 6:9
`regard 14:15,20
`regarding 7:3
`7:11 15:11
`
`regardless 15:15
`Registered 18:2
`related 5:21 8:8
`10:4 13:1,20
`18:12
`relates 14:19
`relevant 11:8
`15:13 17:15
`relied 17:10,12
`reporter 5:14,15
`18:1
`Reporter's
`18:18
`representation
`11:13
`representing
`5:11
`request 6:20
`7:21 12:16
`16:20
`requested 5:18
`require 7:14
`8:12
`requirement
`8:11 11:18
`resolve 16:6
`respond 11:21
`response 6:17
`6:20 7:8 11:1
`16:18
`rest 14:4
`Reston 4:10
`reviewed 14:10
`17:10,13
`right 11:22 16:8
`17:16
`Robert 3:10
`5:10 18:8
`Rohan 6:13
`roll 5:4
`routine 7:11 8:4
`8:6,10,16 9:19
`rsokohl@skgf...
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 21 of 22
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, CBM2014-00137
`Conference Call
`August 8, 2014
`4
`
`202 3:15
`203-2700 4:11
`3
`371-2600 3:15
`3rd 16:19
`
`4 5
`
`51 8:11,16 9:20
`571 4:11
`6
`6,766,304 2:4
`6,772,132 1:13
`7
`7,533,056 1:4
`7,676,411 1:9
`7,685,055 2:9
`8
`
`8 1:17
`8th 18:5,14
`
`Washington
`3:14
`wasn't 9:16
`we're 7:6,12,18
`9:17 16:22
`went 14:4
`Winston 6:6
`10:17 12:6
`13:19
`work 7:2 10:20
`10:22 11:4
`13:10,19 14:11
`worked 6:16
`wouldn't 9:7
`written 12:6,8
`14:1 15:12,12
`16:5 17:14
`X
`X 15:13
`Y
`York 3:13
`
`Z 0
`
`084003064 1:20
`1
`
`1 13:10
`10:02 1:17 18:6
`10:13 17:19 18:6
`1100 3:13
`11955 4:9
`2
`2000 12:16
`20005 3:14
`2005 12:7 13:20
`17:14
`2010 12:16
`2014 1:17 18:5
`18:14
`20190-5675 4:10
`
`3:16
`Rule 8:11,16
`9:19
`rules 7:11,14,14
`8:7,11 9:19
`S
`S 3:1,1 4:1
`SALLY 3:6
`second 7:18 8:7
`see 5:4 7:2
`seek 16:19
`seeking 7:4
`11:18
`September
`16:19
`serve 9:3
`served 9:16
`service 7:15
`Services 5:16
`set 9:19 11:16
`signature 18:18
`single 15:21
`single-action
`9:14
`Sokohl 3:10
`5:10,10 12:2
`17:6,8,17 18:8
`soon 16:14
`sorry 5:19
`sort 11:5
`specific 10:11
`10:13 15:20
`16:1,5
`Square 4:8
`start 5:22
`State 1:20 18:2
`statement 8:5
`16:4
`statements 7:12
`7:16 8:12 9:4,6
`14:15,22
`STATES 1:1
`statute 14:1
`
`statutory 11:17
`stenographica...
`1:19
`Stenotype 18:5
`Sterne 3:12 18:9
`Strang 3:11
`5:12 18:8
`Strawn 6:6 12:7
`13:19
`sued 12:17
`suggested 10:20
`11:5
`summarized
`17:14
`summarizes
`12:10,13
`support 6:14
`sure 15:13
`surprised 16:2
`T
`taken 12:10
`18:3,5
`talking 16:22
`taught 9:12
`TD 1:2,3,3,7,7,7
`1:11,12,12 2:2
`2:3,3,7,7,7 3:9
`5:11 9:5 11:11
`12:15,17,22
`13:8 14:11
`15:4 18:7,7,7
`TD's 10:19
`Technologies
`1:5,9,14 2:5,9
`4:2 5:8 12:8,11
`12:15,18,22
`13:6 14:3 18:9
`Teleconference
`1:18
`thank 5:17 6:1
`12:2 15:8,10
`16:8 17:4,4,16
`17:17
`
`thing 7:10,18
`8:4
`things 7:6 8:3
`8:19 9:2
`thought 13:3
`15:3
`three 6:17 7:19
`13:4
`time 12:16,16
`14:16 17:19
`told 10:21
`Trade 1:5,9,14
`2:5,9 4:2 18:9
`TRADEMARK
`1:1
`Trading 5:7
`12:8,11,15,17
`12:21 13:5
`14:3
`transcribed
`1:20
`transcript 16:14
`18:4
`Trial 1:1,18 3:4
`true 17:10 18:4
`TSE 6:8,8 9:12
`two 4:8 6:22 7:6
`8:3
`
`U
`
`U 3:1
`ultimately 12:21
`13:22
`understand
`16:9
`Unfortunately
`13:5
`UNITED 1:1
`V
`v 1:4,9,13 2:4,9
`Virginia 4:10
`W
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 22 of 22
`
`