`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL,)
`INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`))
`
`))
`
`)
`v.
`)
`eSPEED, INC., eSPEED INTERNATIONAL,)
`LTD., ECCO LLC, and ECCOWARE, LTD.,)
`)
`Defendants.
`)
`
`No. 04 C 5312
`
`Chicago, Illinois
`September 17, 2007
`10:00 o'clock a.m.
`
`VOLUME 4-A
`TRIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMES B. MORAN, and a JURY
`
`APPEARANCES:
`Trading Technologies
`International, Inc., by:
`
`and
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`MR. STEVEN F. BORSAND
`222 South Riverside Drive
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`312-476-1000
`steve.borsand@
`tradingtechnologies.com
`McDONNELL, BOEHNEN, HULBERT &
`BERGHOFF, LTD.
`MR. PAUL H. BERGHOFF
`MR. S. RICHARD CARDEN
`MR. CHRISTOPHER M. CAVAN
`MR. MICHAEL D. GANNON
`MS. JENNIFER M. KURCZ
`MR. MATTHEW J. SAMPSON
`MR. LEIF R. SIGMOND
`300 South Wacker Drive
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`312-913-0001
`berghoff@mbhb.com
`kurcz@mbhb.com
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2011
`TD Ameritrade v. Trading Technologies
`CBM2014-00136
`
`Page 1 of 274
`
`
`
`eSpeed, Inc., eSpeed
`International, Inc.,
`Ecco LLC, Eccoware,
`LTD., by:
`
`Rosenthal Collins Group,
`LLC, by:
`
`639
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN
`MR. GEORGE C. LOMBARDI
`MR. RAYMOND C. PERKINS
`MR. IMRON T. ALY
`MR. KEVIN BANASIK
`MS. ELIZABETH HARTFORD ERICKSON
`MR. ANDREW M. JOHNSTONE
`MS. TRACEY J. ALLEN
`MR. JAMES M. HILMERT
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`312-558-5600
`glombardi@winston.com
`rperkins@winston.com
`LAW OFFICES OF
`GARY A. ROSEN, P.C.
`MR. GARY A. ROSEN
`1831 Chestnut Street, Suite 802
`Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
`19103
`215-972-0600
`
`DOWELL BAKER
`MR. GEOFFREY A. BAKER
`201 Main Street
`Lafayette, IN 47901
`765-429-4004
`gabaker@dowellbaker.com
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`MS. CAROLYN COX, CSR, RPR, CRR
`Official Court Reporter
`219 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 1854-B
`Chicago, Illinois
`60604
`(312) 435-5639
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 2 of 274
`
`
`
`HARRIS BRUMFIELD, DIRECT EXAMINATION
`BY MR. BERGHOFF:
`HARRIS BRUMFIELD, PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS, SWORN,
`CROSS EXAMINATION
`BY MR. LOMBARDI:
`
`REDIRECT EXAMINATION
`BY MR. BERGHOFF
`PATRICK TROY
`DIRECT EXAMINATION
`BY MR. CARDEN:
`BRIEN GREY
`DIRECT EXAMINATION
`BY MR. SAMPSON:
`
`640
`
`660
`
`727
`
`824
`
`835
`835
`
`859
`859
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3 of 274
`
`
`
`641
`
`(The following proceedings were had in open court,
`outside the presence and hearing of the jury:)
`THE COURT:
`Well, I should bring up today as
`to where I'm at from where last we met.
`One is on the
`use of the declarations by the expert, I'm satisfied
`that -- well, one, it's probably not hearsay because it
`relates to state of mind, but in any event, I can see
`where this sort of thing would -- might be problematic
`if you had some expert that was relying solely on this
`kind of evidence, so as one court mentioned, the expert
`But here
`was kind of a mouth piece for the declarant.
`the expert is relying on a lot of things and that's one
`of the things that's out there and that they can do.
`The Japanese prior art.
`Now, as I
`understand it, the printed publication description
`aspect relates to the invention, so what we're really
`And we've already said
`talking about is anticipation.
`no as to the use for anticipation, so the issue is
`really obviousness, where I think that kind of drops out
`the restriction to publications doesn't apply.
`The TIFFE is obviousness, not anticipation.
`And it can come in if authenticated.
`There is no
`translation, but Trading Technologies knew about it for
`Whether Midas Kapiti anticipated, I'm
`a long time.
`unclear as to who is going to be arguing what about
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`09:52:24
`
`09:52:24
`
`09:52:27
`
`09:52:38
`
`09:52:41
`
`09:52:46
`
`09:52:52
`
`09:52:57
`
`09:53:00
`
`09:53:08
`
`09:53:14
`
`09:53:18
`
`09:53:20
`
`09:53:23
`
`09:53:29
`
`09:53:34
`
`09:53:40
`
`09:53:44
`
`09:53:54
`
`09:53:58
`
`09:54:02
`
`09:54:06
`
`09:54:10
`
`09:54:16
`
`Page 4 of 274
`
`
`
`642
`
`I just don't understand, but if it's relevant to
`that.
`anticipation, there is a factual dispute on whether it
`was accessible and I think that's a factual dispute that
`you're going to have to fight out before the jury and
`let them hear what the evidence is.
`And it clearly can
`come in with respect to obviousness.
`Tokyo Stock Exchange, again, obviousness.
`And here the argument that if more than one person
`reasonably skilled in the art comes up with essentially
`the same idea at the same time does have a bearing on
`obviousness, but it also seems to me you know when you
`talk about combination patents where somebody is saying
`something is patentable because I combined this which
`was known in the art and that that was known in the art
`for a new and different result, sometimes that's
`patentable and sometimes it's not and sometimes you end
`up with an argument about whether it was obvious or not,
`and I think that's where we're at, unless somebody can
`convince me otherwise, that even if a static Price
`Ladder is known in the art and even if in some other
`invention, patent, the idea of single click or single
`action is in the art, putting that together is that
`obvious or not, it seems to me that that's something
`that both sides can argue and permits that evidence to
`come in.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`09:54:20
`
`09:54:24
`
`09:54:28
`
`09:54:31
`
`09:54:34
`
`09:54:40
`
`09:54:44
`
`09:54:48
`
`09:54:59
`
`09:55:03
`
`09:55:06
`
`09:55:11
`
`09:55:16
`
`09:55:22
`
`09:55:25
`
`09:55:32
`
`09:55:35
`
`09:55:38
`
`09:55:43
`
`09:55:50
`
`09:56:03
`
`09:56:07
`
`09:56:10
`
`09:56:14
`
`09:56:17
`
`Page 5 of 274
`
`
`
`643
`
`Finally -- well, not finally, but, again, on
`this business on the binaries and executables, as I
`understand it, the archive source code is what it is.
`It's been there, I think they validated it as being
`there at a certain point in time, it was something that
`people were playing around with and kept changing, but
`you can't pinpoint what the source code was at any
`particular time.
`And to compile that source code into
`executables is a -- is not a matter involving judgment,
`discretion, it is a pretty much a mechanical process.
`don't know if mechanical is the right word, but it's
`compiled through the human readable source code related
`to the old the 0's and the 1s in computer technology to
`come up with executables.
`And if you stick in the right
`request, everybody is going to end up with the same
`answer in terms of executables.
`ESpeed played around
`with executables as -- to some extent until very
`recently, but TT certainly could, and I think that can
`come in.
`
`I
`
`Then I think finally, I have been through a
`lot of the depositions; Davies, Stedman, Eccleston, and
`I've still got a couple to go, and my standard
`Cowan.
`has been to be very lenient on relevance.
`It's very
`difficult for me to be very hard nose about relevance
`when I'm looking at it totally in a vacuum, reading
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`09:56:18
`
`09:56:42
`
`09:56:48
`
`09:56:57
`
`09:57:01
`
`09:57:04
`
`09:57:07
`
`09:57:13
`
`09:57:15
`
`09:57:21
`
`09:57:27
`
`09:57:30
`
`09:57:39
`
`09:57:46
`
`09:57:54
`
`09:57:58
`
`09:58:02
`
`09:58:10
`
`09:58:16
`
`09:58:17
`
`09:58:26
`
`09:58:41
`
`09:58:46
`
`09:58:53
`
`09:59:01
`
`Page 6 of 274
`
`
`
`644
`
`deposition testimony.
`There is one area, though, that I do want to
`talk to you about, and that is this whole concept of
`copying, and I can't remember which one it is -- oh,
`particularly Stedman, when there is a great deal of
`deposition testimony that is claimed to be relevant to
`copying.
`
`From my perspective for copying, you're
`going to have to show, one, that eSpeed could copy it;
`two, that they did; and three, that they did so with
`knowledge that -- or reasonably that what they were
`copying was covered by the patent or was likely to be
`And that
`covered by the patent, given the application.
`is a rather small tail on the dog that if eSpeed copied
`everything -- I mean, you have somebody saying I don't
`care whether it's protected or not, copy it, that
`whether it was covered or not then becomes not that
`relevant because it's so egregious that it can come in.
`But most of the testimony, certainly in the
`Stedman deposition, relates to the fact that various
`people who were at eSpeed said, sure, I knew what was in
`the trader, I looked at it, I saw it over at
`such-and-such a place, and which really doesn't get TT
`much of anyplace, because, indeed, it's not only
`permissible for competitors to find out what the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`09:59:05
`
`09:59:06
`
`09:59:08
`
`09:59:12
`
`09:59:18
`
`09:59:24
`
`09:59:29
`
`09:59:33
`
`09:59:37
`
`09:59:49
`
`09:59:55
`
`09:59:59
`
`10:00:03
`
`10:00:10
`
`10:00:19
`
`10:00:21
`
`10:00:25
`
`10:00:29
`
`10:00:34
`
`10:00:37
`
`10:00:42
`
`10:00:52
`
`10:00:57
`
`10:01:02
`
`10:01:09
`
`Page 7 of 274
`
`
`
`645
`
`competition is doing, they'd have to be pretty stupid
`not to want to know.
`It has nothing to do with one,
`whether something was copied.
`It's sort of like
`copyright law; that, sure, it shows accessibility, but
`nothing more.
`So it's a concept that I think TT is
`entitled to get before the jury; that certainly eSpeed
`was in a position to know what TT was doing and took
`advantage of it to do so, but it doesn't take you very
`far, and it certainly is something that ought to be -- a
`point that ought to be made and then move on.
`And I guess I am going through it from my
`perspective of a very light touch in terms of relevance.
`I didn't excise much of it, but somebody should because
`it's a point that ought to be made and then move on, and
`we shouldn't go over and over and over it again because
`So I turn to TT and
`it really is a fairly minor point.
`say, when you get all this stuff back, you need to
`excise out a lot of the so-called copying testimony.
`That's where I'm at.
`And what housekeeping things do you have?
`MR. SAMPSON:
`Can I make one comment on the
`
`prior art --
`
`Yes.
`THE COURT:
`MR. SAMPSON: -- on the Japanese prior art
`and the executables and binaries.
`As far as whether the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10:01:12
`
`10:01:15
`
`10:01:20
`
`10:01:23
`
`10:01:27
`
`10:01:32
`
`10:01:37
`
`10:01:46
`
`10:01:50
`
`10:01:54
`
`10:01:56
`
`10:02:00
`
`10:02:07
`
`10:02:12
`
`10:02:16
`
`10:02:19
`
`10:02:30
`
`10:02:35
`
`10:02:42
`
`10:02:51
`
`10:02:57
`
`10:02:57
`
`10:02:57
`
`10:02:57
`
`10:02:59
`
`Page 8 of 274
`
`
`
`646
`
`issue.
`
`material itself actually qualifies as prior art under
`Section 102, the same standards apply for obviousness as
`for anticipation, right?
`So we just -- with all this
`evidence coming in, I just wanted to preview later for
`you, one, a very clear instruction to the jury that they
`have to decide first that this stuff qualifies as prior
`art under Section 102.
`Your Honor, we have one other
`MR. SIGMOND:
`If it's okay, Mr. Gannon will address it.
`MR. GANNON:
`Good morning, your Honor; Mike
`Gannon for plaintiff, TT.
`Your Honor, we hope to be putting on our
`There are three products at issue for
`case today.
`purposes of this trial.
`Each of the products has
`multiple versions, and the functionality of all of these
`versions, and, in fact, of all the three products is the
`same for purposes of infringement, so we are looking for
`a way to try to streamline the case so we don't have the
`We are asking for a
`jury here for weeks and weeks.
`stipulation from the other side that functionality is
`the same with the exception of the Futures View product
`which has an automatic recentering feature which can be
`turned on or off.
`Your Honor, we did send them a
`MR. PERKINS:
`stipulation I believe on Friday about that addressing
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10:03:03
`
`10:03:08
`
`10:03:11
`
`10:03:14
`
`10:03:18
`
`10:03:22
`
`10:03:29
`
`10:03:46
`
`10:03:47
`
`10:03:51
`
`10:03:52
`
`10:03:54
`
`10:03:57
`
`10:04:01
`
`10:04:04
`
`10:04:09
`
`10:04:13
`
`10:04:15
`
`10:04:18
`
`10:04:20
`
`10:04:22
`
`10:04:25
`
`10:04:29
`
`10:04:31
`
`10:04:34
`
`Page 9 of 274
`
`
`
`647
`
`this issue, and I thought we had some correspondence on
`this, but we did propose our stipulation and what we're
`willing to do, so I am not sure where we stand.
`MR. GANNON:
`On this particular issue, we
`are just looking for a stipulation to that fact, that
`with respect to all the accused products and all the
`versions of them --
`THE COURT:
`
`The ones through what?
`
`December
`
`2004?
`
`It's until December 2004, but
`MR. PERKINS:
`I think the problem that we set forth in our stipulation
`is that they not only accused versions that were
`released in the market, but also internal development
`versions which changed over time, so we can't stipulate
`to that.
`
`And, two, in terms of all the functionality,
`we can't stipulate that all the functionality was the
`same.
`That's why we sent over a stipulation telling
`them exactly what we're willing to stipulate to, and
`again, I don't know where we stand on that.
`MR. GANNON:
`Your Honor, in their
`interrogatory responses that they served in this case
`and all of their experts, the only argument they have
`made for non-infringement is that, number one, the
`patents are invalid, and number two, that one of the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10:04:37
`
`10:04:41
`
`10:04:49
`
`10:04:52
`
`10:04:54
`
`10:04:57
`
`10:04:58
`
`10:04:59
`
`10:05:02
`
`10:05:04
`
`10:05:09
`
`10:05:16
`
`10:05:18
`
`10:05:21
`
`10:05:25
`
`10:05:26
`
`10:05:27
`
`10:05:30
`
`10:05:32
`
`10:05:37
`
`10:05:40
`
`10:05:41
`
`10:05:43
`
`10:05:46
`
`10:05:50
`
`Page 10 of 274
`
`
`
`648
`
`products has an automatic recentering feature that can
`be turned on or off.
`That's the only argument they've
`ever made, so it seems to me to be a waste of time to be
`going through all of these different --
`THE COURT:
`I don't want to go through all
`the versions.
`I don't think they want to go through all
`the versions.
`Here is our stipulation if you
`MR. PERKINS:
`want to hand it up to your Honor.
`This is what we're
`willing to do.
`Doesn't this --
`THE COURT:
`Well, there's a couple things
`MR. GANNON:
`going on here, your Honor.
`I think the first paragraph
`of the proposed stipulation --
`Is what you want.
`THE COURT:
`MR. GANNON:
`-- works if they agree to
`The problem is the correspondence said, you
`stipulate.
`know, we may enter into a stipulation, so it didn't
`really nail it down.
`Well, what I'm getting is that
`THE COURT:
`they're prepared to do so.
`This is what we're prepared to
`MR. PERKINS:
`This is what we communicated to them, and I just
`do.
`don't know where we stand on that.
`It sounds like he's
`trying to force us to stipulate to something that we're
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10:05:53
`
`10:05:57
`
`10:06:00
`
`10:06:04
`
`10:06:05
`
`10:06:07
`
`10:06:09
`
`10:06:09
`
`10:06:11
`
`10:06:13
`
`10:06:52
`
`10:06:54
`
`10:06:55
`
`10:06:58
`
`10:07:00
`
`10:07:01
`
`10:07:03
`
`10:07:06
`
`10:07:08
`
`10:07:09
`
`10:07:11
`
`10:07:12
`
`10:07:13
`
`10:07:16
`
`10:07:19
`
`Page 11 of 274
`
`
`
`649
`
`not quite sure what it is, so we just tried to lay it
`out exactly in writing exactly what we're doing.
`MR. GANNON:
`There's a couple issues, your
`Honor, and I'm dealing with the first issue first, and,
`that is, we just want a stipulation that the
`functionality of these products is the same except for
`automatic recentering in the Futures View product.
`That's the first paragraph of this stipulation.
`Okay?
`And then I'll address the second issue, which is in the
`remainder of this document.
`MR. PERKINS:
`And on the first part, your
`Honor, we can't stipulate all functionality is the same.
`They have like 80 or 90 patent applications still
`pending.
`I'm not sure what that stipulation means but
`with respect to those other patent applications.
`This
`is what we're willing to do which we think covers what
`they're trying to get at while still protecting my
`clients' rights.
`Just to be clear, your Honor,
`MR. GANNON:
`all we're asking for -- and I think this first paragraph
`does it -- that is, that the accused products have the
`same functionality with respect to the infringement
`issue in this case.
`That's it.
`So, in other words, the
`accused products may have other differences that aren't
`relevant to the infringement issue here.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10:07:23
`
`10:07:27
`
`10:07:30
`
`10:07:32
`
`10:07:34
`
`10:07:39
`
`10:07:41
`
`10:07:45
`
`10:07:48
`
`10:07:51
`
`10:07:53
`
`10:07:55
`
`10:07:58
`
`10:08:00
`
`10:08:03
`
`10:08:06
`
`10:08:08
`
`10:08:11
`
`10:08:12
`
`10:08:14
`
`10:08:17
`
`10:08:20
`
`10:08:23
`
`10:08:27
`
`10:08:30
`
`Page 12 of 274
`
`
`
`THE COURT:
`
`I think that first sentence does
`
`that.
`
`650
`
`Okay.
`Capable of being used in an
`
`I just want to make sure that
`
`MR. GANNON:
`THE COURT:
`infringing way.
`MR. GANNON:
`that's clear --
`It's clear to me.
`THE COURT:
`-- and that's what the
`MR. GANNON:
`defendants have stipulated to.
`MR. PERKINS:
`Here, your Honor, this is what
`we're willing to do.
`Here it is.
`I am not sure what
`the issue is.
`Well, they just want to be
`THE COURT:
`assured that you are saying, yes, with respect to the
`infringement claims in this case, that those products
`were capable of infringing.
`MR. PERKINS:
`They were capable of it, but
`that's what our second paragraph -- we are not admitting
`to infringement.
`THE COURT:
`to that one yet.
`MR. GANNON:
`like to address.
`MR. PERKINS:
`
`I understand.
`
`We haven't gotten
`
`That's the second issue I'd
`
`It's a tactic.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10:08:35
`
`10:08:37
`
`10:08:38
`
`10:08:39
`
`10:08:41
`
`10:08:42
`
`10:08:44
`
`10:08:44
`
`10:08:45
`
`10:08:47
`
`10:08:48
`
`10:08:51
`
`10:08:54
`
`10:08:55
`
`10:08:57
`
`10:09:08
`
`10:09:10
`
`10:09:12
`
`10:09:15
`
`10:09:17
`
`10:09:18
`
`10:09:20
`
`10:09:21
`
`10:09:23
`
`10:09:24
`
`Page 13 of 274
`
`
`
`651
`
`Just so we're clear, the first
`MR. GANNON:
`issue, these products all operate the same way for the
`purposes of infringement except for automatic --
`THE COURT:
`On your infringement claims.
`MR. GANNON:
`Correct.
`With the exception of
`automatic recentering, all the products have the same
`functionality.
`I just want to make sure that's clear.
`The second issue is the rest of their
`proposed stipulation, your Honor.
`And what it has to do
`with is whether a customer has used the accused products
`and whether or not the defendants induced infringement.
`And on that issue, your Honor, I'd just like to say, of
`course, we know the defendants customers used the
`software.
`We have evidence of that.
`THE COURT:
`Sure.
`MR. GANNON:
`But the defendants never made
`that point, they never argued it, they never said that
`in an interrogatory response, and we feel like for them
`to be making the position now is just -- it just doesn't
`make any sense.
`THE COURT:
`This is new to me.
`Well, it's not new to TT.
`MR. PERKINS:
`looking at our interrogatory response here dated May
`25th where we say that we're relying upon the testimony
`
`And I am a little unclear, too.
`
`I'm
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10:09:25
`
`10:09:27
`
`10:09:29
`
`10:09:31
`
`10:09:34
`
`10:09:36
`
`10:09:39
`
`10:09:41
`
`10:09:43
`
`10:09:46
`
`10:09:51
`
`10:09:58
`
`10:10:00
`
`10:10:02
`
`10:10:04
`
`10:10:05
`
`10:10:07
`
`10:10:10
`
`10:10:12
`
`10:10:18
`
`10:10:19
`
`10:10:21
`
`10:10:22
`
`10:10:26
`
`10:10:30
`
`Page 14 of 274
`
`
`
`652
`
`of our witnesses who talked about this issue in detail
`and we're relying upon our expert reports.
`Our expert
`report of Richard Ferraro, our non-infringement
`expert -- I am looking at page 9 of his opinion under
`summary of conclusions, the very first summary, It is my
`opinion that the asserted claims are not infringed with
`the original accused products because the automatic
`recentering feature is enabled.
`It is my understanding
`that this is the default condition.
`Our experts
`disclosed that.
`But automatic recentering only
`THE COURT:
`applies to one of the products.
`MR. SIGMOND:
`That's the point, your Honor.
`MR. GANNON:
`You're right, your Honor.
`THE COURT:
`So let's take them one at a
`
`time.
`
`any --
`
`recentering.
`
`recentering.
`
`MR. PERKINS:
`THE COURT:
`
`Sure.
`The other two products, is there
`
`MR. PERKINS:
`
`Do not have automatic
`
`THE COURT:
`MR. PERKINS:
`
`Pardon me?
`Do not have automatic
`
`THE COURT:
`
`So this doesn't really --
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10:10:35
`
`10:10:39
`
`10:10:42
`
`10:10:48
`
`10:10:51
`
`10:10:54
`
`10:10:59
`
`10:11:01
`
`10:11:05
`
`10:11:07
`
`10:11:08
`
`10:11:10
`
`10:11:13
`
`10:11:14
`
`10:11:15
`
`10:11:17
`
`10:11:17
`
`10:11:18
`
`10:11:20
`
`10:11:20
`
`10:11:22
`
`10:11:23
`
`10:11:23
`
`10:11:24
`
`10:11:25
`
`Page 15 of 274
`
`
`
`653
`
`paragraph 2 doesn't really apply to those products, does
`it?
`
`It does not apply to those
`MR. PERKINS:
`products, but they still have to prove direct
`infringement.
`They have to prove that users actually
`used our product in an infringing manner.
`That's their
`burden; that's not ours.
`If any use of the product was
`THE COURT:
`going to infringe, then all they have to do is say the
`customers used the product, right?
`MR. PERKINS:
`We'll see how it comes in, but
`generally, I think that's right.
`THE COURT:
`Generally speaking, yes?
`MR. PERKINS:
`Yes.
`THE COURT:
`So -- and I --
`MR. SIGMOND:
`But, your Honor, that's a
`position they have never taken before, that we have to
`show -- that we have to truck customers up here and say
`It seems silly and it
`oh, yeah, we used the product.
`seems like a waste of everyone's time.
`Any one of your people that gets
`THE COURT:
`up later, it just seems to me who are out in the field,
`all they have to do is answer one question which is:
`When you're out in the field, did you witness the
`customers using the product -- well, eSpeed's product
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10:11:27
`
`10:11:30
`
`10:11:31
`
`10:11:32
`
`10:11:34
`
`10:11:37
`
`10:11:41
`
`10:11:43
`
`10:11:44
`
`10:11:47
`
`10:11:49
`
`10:11:51
`
`10:11:52
`
`10:11:54
`
`10:11:54
`
`10:11:57
`
`10:11:59
`
`10:12:02
`
`10:12:06
`
`10:12:09
`
`10:12:11
`
`10:12:13
`
`10:12:17
`
`10:12:19
`
`10:12:22
`
`Page 16 of 274
`
`
`
`or --
`
`654
`
`I guess Amanda Lewis.
`MR. SIGMOND:
`Yeah.
`THE COURT:
`No, Amanda Lewis didn't do
`MR. PERKINS:
`that for the eSpeed product.
`In fact, she testified
`that she didn't recall automatic recentering being
`turned off.
`And there is a second part to the
`They
`infringement analysis that's included on this.
`have method claims.
`So to infringe a method claim, they
`have to show not only that our product was used in an
`infringing manner, but also that we induced that
`infringement or contributed to that infringement.
`That's the law, that's their burden to prove, and we
`don't think that they can meet that burden.
`We are not
`waiving that.
`Your Honor, just so the record
`MR. GANNON:
`is clear, their experts and their interrogatory
`responses never said, hey, there's no inducement, or our
`And why didn't they
`customers never used the product.
`say that?
`Because it's silly.
`THE COURT:
`It is silly.
`MR. GANNON:
`We know their customers used
`the products.
`We know their manuals teach customers how
`to use the software.
`MR. PERKINS:
`
`That's not the question.
`
`This
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10:12:31
`
`10:12:33
`
`10:12:36
`
`10:12:36
`
`10:12:39
`
`10:12:42
`
`10:12:45
`
`10:12:47
`
`10:12:50
`
`10:12:53
`
`10:13:01
`
`10:13:03
`
`10:13:06
`
`10:13:09
`
`10:13:12
`
`10:13:13
`
`10:13:14
`
`10:13:18
`
`10:13:23
`
`10:13:26
`
`10:13:26
`
`10:13:28
`
`10:13:29
`
`10:13:33
`
`10:13:34
`
`Page 17 of 274
`
`
`
`655
`
`They
`goes to the law, infringement of a method claim.
`have to show that our client had specific intent to
`And
`induce infringement of the patent.
`That's the law.
`we are not waiving that.
`It's not about customers and
`how the customers use it.
`It goes to the client's
`specific intent to induce infringement of the patent.
`THE COURT:
`If the way the product was used,
`you know, the way it's understood that it's supposed to
`be used infringes the patent and you put it out in the
`stream of commerce, they don't need to prove very much.
`MR. PERKINS:
`But that's not the law.
`Acts
`of infringement itself is not enough when we are talking
`about method claims.
`We are hoping to present all of
`this to you in the jury instructions, but we don't think
`that we should be forced to stipulate to that because we
`just disagree with them on the law.
`MR. GANNON:
`The problem, your Honor, is we
`asked them in discovery what's your position on
`non-infringement, and they never said we don't induce
`our customers.
`Okay.
`THE COURT:
`That's their argument.
`MR. PERKINS:
`I guess maybe we're going to
`THE COURT:
`have to revisit this one, but for now, certainly, it
`seems to me you're entitled to tell the jury that with
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10:13:35
`
`10:13:40
`
`10:13:44
`
`10:13:48
`
`10:13:51
`
`10:13:54
`
`10:13:59
`
`10:14:03
`
`10:14:09
`
`10:14:15
`
`10:14:21
`
`10:14:23
`
`10:14:26
`
`10:14:28
`
`10:14:31
`
`10:14:34
`
`10:14:36
`
`10:14:38
`
`10:14:40
`
`10:14:44
`
`10:14:45
`
`10:14:46
`
`10:14:47
`
`10:14:48
`
`10:14:52
`
`Page 18 of 274
`
`
`
`656
`
`two of the three products, that the defendant does not
`contest the fact that the use of those products in the
`normal manner constitutes an infringement of -- direct
`infringement of the claims.
`MR. PERKINS:
`But not all of the claims.
`THE COURT:
`Of the claims that are claimed
`to be infringed.
`And not all the claims, your
`MR. PERKINS:
`Honor, because the last sentence in our second
`paragraph, independent Claim 14 and its dependent
`claims, we don't think there's any direct infringement
`there.
`Those are product claims, and it's part of the
`product that has to be sold.
`You have to sell not just
`the software, but it requires that you sell a display
`We don't do that.
`device and an input device.
`THE COURT:
`I don't know anything about
`
`that.
`
`Your Honor, it's a system
`MR. GANNON:
`claim, a system claim including the software that
`defendants sell.
`It's the same as the method claims for
`purposes of the analysis.
`Method claims
`No, it's not.
`MR. PERKINS:
`is one infringement analysis, system of product claims
`that's another analysis, and that's what we're trying to
`preserve in this stipulation.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10:14:57
`
`10:15:05
`
`10:15:11
`
`10:15:16
`
`10:15:18
`
`10:15:21
`
`10:15:23
`
`10:15:23
`
`10:15:25
`
`10:15:30
`
`10:15:33
`
`10:15:36
`
`10:15:40
`
`10:15:44
`
`10:15:47
`
`10:15:52
`
`10:15:53
`
`10:15:54
`
`10:15:57
`
`10:16:01
`
`10:16:05
`
`10:16:08
`
`10:16:11
`
`10:16:15
`
`10:16:21
`
`Page 19 of 274
`
`
`
`657
`
`Again, your Honor, no mention
`MR. GANNON:
`of this in their interrogatory response, no mention of
`this from their experts.
`The only thing that they've
`ever said in this case is that with respect to Futures
`View, that product has the on-off switch.
`THE COURT:
`Right.
`MR. GANNON:
`That's the only thing they've
`
`ever said.
`
`That was my understanding, but
`THE COURT:
`at this juncture, I am not really in a position to -- I
`don't know enough about it to make a judgment.
`MR. GANNON:
`I have their interrogatory
`
`responses.
`
`You are certainly entitled to
`THE COURT:
`I think we have enough so we can proceed and
`use them.
`sandpaper the rest of it a little bit later.
`Okay.
`Should we get the jury?
`MR. SAMPSON:
`Your Honor, one other
`clarifying issue on your ruling on the prior Midas
`Kapiti prior art, the Japanese prior art relating to
`Midas Kapiti exchange, and you said that eSpeed can
`present that prior art.
`I'm assuming, but you didn't
`say, so I'm asking for clarification that we can also
`present those agreements, the contracts that stated that
`the art is confidential.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10:16:22
`
`10:16:24
`
`10:16:28
`
`10:16:31
`
`10:16:34
`
`10:16:35
`
`10:16:36
`
`10:16:38
`
`10:16:38
`
`10:16:40
`
`10:16:44
`
`10:16:48
`
`10:16:49
`
`10:16:50
`
`10:16:52
`
`10:17:03
`
`10:17:10
`
`10:17:18
`
`10:17:19
`
`10:17:22
`
`10:17:22
`
`10:17:26
`
`10:17:28
`
`10:17:32
`
`10:17:35
`
`Page 20 of 274
`
`
`
`658
`
`I mean, I think whether
`Yes.
`THE COURT:
`that was accessible or not is a disputed fact.
`MR. SAMPSON:
`So their motion in limine on
`the contracts is denied?
`THE COURT:
`MR. SAMPSON:
`the part itself is denied?
`THE COURT:
`Yes.
`MR. PERKINS:
`I guess I'm not sure --
`MR. SAMPSON:
`The Markman and the brief, I'm
`sorry, your Honor.
`THE COURT:
`
`Yes.
`And our motion in limine on
`
`It's not a motion, it was an
`
`argument.
`
`We do have a housekeeping
`MR. PERKINS:
`We are told by TT that their case will be done
`matter.
`on Wednesday.
`Right.
`THE COURT:
`We have a witness, Mr. Jean
`MR. PERKINS:
`Cedric Jollant who is only available Thursday to come in
`and testify, so if for some reason they are not done by
`Wednesday --
`
`THE COURT:
`We can just put him on.
`Thank you.
`MR. PERKINS:
`We do just have one quick final
`MR. CARDEN:
`ESpeed this morning filed -- actually, I think
`
`matter.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10:17:36
`
`10:17:39
`
`10:17:43
`
`10:17:46
`
`10:17:47
`
`10:17:48
`
`10:17:50
`
`10:17:53
`
`10:17:55
`
`10:17:58
`
`10:18:00
`
`10:18:01
`
`10:18:03
`
`10:18:03
`
`10:18:04
`
`10:18:07
`
`10:18:08
`
`10:18:09
`
`10:18:12
`
`10:18:15
`
`10:18:19
`
`10:18:19
`
`10:18:20
`
`10:18:22
`
`10:18:24
`
`Page 21 of 274
`
`
`
`659
`
`that's what Mr. Perkins is going to talk about now --
`three motion in limine.
`We will respond today, your
`Honor.
`I don't think it affects any testimony that will
`happen.
`
`There is a new motion in limine
`
`THE COURT:
`on the privilege?
`There are --
`MR. CARDEN:
`Yeah, you have one.
`THE COURT:
`We have one on privilege.
`MR. CARDEN:
`Yes.
`They have one on what?
`THE COURT:
`They have three that were filed
`MR. CARDEN:
`One on Mr. Nixon's testimony with respect to
`today:
`willfulness, one with respect to the testimony of Steve
`Brucato, and the last one is on the Markman issue.
`THE COURT:
`Okay.
`MR. CARDEN:
`We will respond to them today.
`MR. PERKINS:
`And we can hand those up, your
`Honor, a courtesy copy.
`(The jury enters the courtroom.)
`THE COURT:
`Have a seat, ladies and
`Welcome back.
`I hope you had a nice
`gentlemen.
`weekend, and we are prepared to proceed.
`MR. BERGHOFF:
`May it please the court.
`THE COURT:
`You may.
`MR. BERGHOFF:
`Good morning.
`
`Trading
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10:18:27
`
`10:18:30
`
`10:18:32
`
`10:18:35
`
`10:18:36
`
`10:18:39
`
`10:18:41
`
`10:18:43
`
`10:18:44
`
`10:18:45
`
`10:18:47
`
`10:18:48
`
`10:18:53
`
`10:18:56
`
`10:19:00
`
`10:19:00
`
`10:19:02
`
`10:19:04
`
`10:20:30
`
`10:20:32
`
`10:20:33
`
`10:20:35
`
`10:20:37
`
`10:20:38
`
`10:20:40
`
`Page 22 of 274
`
`
`
`660
`
`Technologies is going to call for its next witness Mr.
`Harris Brumfield.
`(Witness sworn.)
`
`- - -
`HARRIS BRUMFIELD, DIRECT EXAMINATION
`BY MR. BERGHOFF:
`Mr. Brumfield, could you please tell the jury
`Q.
`your full name.
`Harris Clayton Brumfield.
`A.
`And what is your current position?
`Q.
`CEO of Trading Technologies.
`A.
`And that's Trading Technologies, that's the
`Q.
`plaintiff in this lawsuit?
`Yes.
`A.
`Where do you live?
`Q.
`In Chicago.
`A.
`And with whom do you live?
`Q.
`I have a wife and three daughters.
`A.
`And did you graduate from college, Mr. Brumfield?
`Q.
`Yes, I did.
`A.
`And where did you go?
`Q.
`Mississippi State University.
`A.
`I assume that's in Mississippi?
`Q.
`Yes.
`A.
`And what did you study at Mississippi State?
`Q.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10:20:44
`
`10:20:47
`
`10:21:16
`
`10:21:16
`
`10:21:16
`
`10:21:16
`
`10:21:19
`
`10:21:21
`
`10:21:22
`
`10:21:25
`
`10:21:27
`
`10:21:30
`
`10:21:33
`
`10:21:35
`
`10:21:35
`
`10:21:37
`
`10:21:40
`
`10:21:42
`
`10:21:47
`
`10:21:54
`
`10:21:55
`
`10:21:57
`
`10:21:59
`
`10:22:04
`
`10:22:04
`
`Page 23 of 274
`
`
`
`661
`
`When did you
`
`Banking and finance.
`A.
`And when did you graduate?
`Q.
`In 1986.
`A.
`And you're here in Chicago now.
`Q.
`first come to Chicago?
`Late 1986, late 1986.
`A.
`And what brought you to Chicago?
`Q.
`A couple of different friends mentioned the
`A.
`exchanges here, and one of them actually worked there,
`and one of them worked at Arthur Andersen and his wife
`worked for the exchange, and I knew them from school and
`they were older, and they thought my personality, it
`might be something that would interest me when I
`graduated.
`So I came and actually stayed on one of
`their couches for a month or so.
`And when was this?
`Q.
`This was November 1st, 1986.
`A.
`And did you get involved in any of the exchanges
`Q.
`at that point in Chicago?
`Yes.
`My one friends that worked at the exchange,
`A.
`worked at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.
`I ended up
`getting a job running for PaineWebber at the Chicago
`Board of Trade in the green room.
`And how long did you keep that position as a
`Q.
`runner?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10:22:07
`
`10:22:09
`
`10:22:10
`
`10:22:13
`
`10:22:21
`
`10:22:22
`
`10:22:28
`
`10:22:30
`
`10:22:37
`
`10:22:40
`
`10:22:46
`
`10:22:47
`
`10:22:50
`
`10:22:52
`
`10:22:55
`
`10:22:57
`
`10:22:58
`
`10:23:01
`
`10:23:06
`
`10:23:07
`
`10:23:12
`
`10:23:16
`
`10:23:21
`
`10:23:23
`
`10:23:25
`
`Page 24 of 274
`
`
`
`662
`
`A few months; maybe three, four months.
`A.
`And just briefly, what is a runner, what does a
`Q.
`runner do, what did you do?
`So they have the pits where the traders are and
`A.
`the brokers and they all interact.
`And on the side,
`they have all the desks, the trading desks where
`different firms are located and the different orders
`come in through those desks, whether they're wire orders
`or phone orders.
`An