`571.272.7822
`
` Paper No. 24
`
` Entered: January 6, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORP., TD AMERITRADE, INC., AND
`TD AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`CBM2014-00131 (Patent 7,533,056)
`CBM2014-00133 (Patent 7,676,411)
`CBM2014-00135 (Patent 6,772,132)
`CBM2014-00137 (Patent 7,685,055)
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131 (Patent 7,533,056)
`CBM2014-00133 (Patent 7,676,411)
`CBM2014-00135 (Patent 6,772,132)
`CBM2014-00137 (Patent 7,685,055)
`
`
`
`On January 5, 2015, the initial conference call1 was held between
`counsel for the respective parties and Judges Medley, Petravick, and
`Hoffmann.
`
`Motions
`Neither party seeks authorization to file a motion at this time. If
`Patent Owner determines that it will file a motion to amend, Patent Owner
`must arrange a conference call with the Board and opposing counsel to
`discuss the proposed motion to amend. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a).
`In addition, a party seeking authorization to file a motion not
`contemplated per the Scheduling Order must arrange a conference call with
`opposing counsel and the Board.
`
`Discovery
`Petitioner requested certain documents from Patent Owner per rule
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i) (routine discovery). Patent Owner disagreed that
`the requested documents are routine discovery, but rather are additional
`discovery. As discussed, the parties may agree to additional discovery
`between themselves. 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2). The parties agreed to discuss
`Petitioner’s requests further in an attempt to come to an agreement regarding
`the sought after documents. The parties shall arrange a conference call with
`the Board if there remains any dispute regarding discovery.
`Schedule
`Petitioner sought authorization to move DUE DATE 7 (oral argument
`date), but withdrew the request based upon discussion. Accordingly, there
`
`1 The initial conference call is held to discuss the Scheduling Order and any
`motions that the parties anticipate filing during the trial. Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48765 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131 (Patent 7,533,056)
`CBM2014-00133 (Patent 7,676,411)
`CBM2014-00135 (Patent 6,772,132)
`CBM2014-00137 (Patent 7,685,055)
`
`
`
`are no current issues with the Scheduling Order.
`To the extent issues arise with DATES 1-5 identified in the
`Scheduling Order, the parties are reminded that, without obtaining prior
`authorization from the Board, they may stipulate to different dates for
`DATES 1-5, as provided in the Scheduling Order, by filing an appropriate
`notice with the Board. The parties may not stipulate to any other changes to
`the Scheduling Order.
`
`Related Matters
`The parties believe that a motion to stay the related district court case
`has been contemplated. Patent Owner shall file an updated notice regarding
`any decision of a motion to stay. 37 C.F.R. § 42.8.
`Settlement
`The parties have nothing to report with respect to settlement.
`Order
`
`It is
`ORDERED that no motions are authorized at this time.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00131 (Patent 7,533,056)
`CBM2014-00133 (Patent 7,676,411)
`CBM2014-00135 (Patent 6,772,132)
`CBM2014-00137 (Patent 7,685,055)
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`Lori Gordon
`Jonathan Strang
`Robert E. Sokohl
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX
`lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`jstrang-PTAB@skgf.com
`rsokohl-ptab@skgf.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Erika H. Arner
`Steven F Borsand
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT AND DUNNER,
`LLP
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`Steve.Borsand@tradingtechnologies.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`
`4
`
`