throbber
638
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket