`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`Page 1
` IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________________
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORP., )
`TD AMERITRADE, INC., and )
`TD AMERITRADE ONLINE ) Case No. CBM2014-
`HOLDINGS CORP., ) 00131 and
` )
` Petitioners, ) CMB2014-00137
` v. )
` )
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES )
`INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`_______________________________)
`
` ORAL DEPOSITION OF RICHARD HARTHEIMER
` Wednesday, April 29, 2015
` Washington, D.C.
` 9:29 a.m.
`
` Reported by: Susan Ashe, RMR, CRR
`
` ---------------------------------------------------
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1726 M Street NW, Suite 1010
` Washington, DC 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`TDA 1029
`TD Ameritrade v. TT
`CBM2014-00137
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`Page 2
` The oral deposition of RICHARD HARTHEIMER
` was taken at the law offices of Finnegan, Henderson,
` Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, 901 New York Avenue,
` Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20001-4413, on
` Wednesday, April 29, 2015, commencing at 9:29 a.m.,
` in the presence of counsel for the parties.
` It was agreed that Susan Ashe, Registered
` Merit Reporter and Notary Public in and for the
` District of Columbia, would take said deposition in
` machine shorthand and, when requested, transcribe
` the same to typewriting by means of computer-aided
` transcription.
` Said deposition was taken subject alone to
` objections that are required by the Federal Rules of
` Civil Procedure to be made at the time the
` deposition is taken. All other objections were
` reserved until the trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`Page 3
`
` APPEARANCES:
` FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT &
` DUNNER, LLP
` BY: JOSHUA L. GOLDBERG, ESQ.
` RACHEL L. EMSLEY, ESQ.
` JIA LU, ESQ.
` 901 New York Avenue, Northwest
` Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
` (202) 408-4000
` - and -
` McDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
` BY: MICHAEL D. GANNON, ESQ.
` 300 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606-6709
` (312) 913-0001
` Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` APPEARANCES (Continued):
` STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN FOX
` BY: JONATHAN M. STRANG, ESQ.
` BY: RICHARD M. BEMBEN, ESQ.
` 1100 New York Avenue, Northwest
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` (202) 371-2600
` Counsel on behalf of the Defendant
`
` ALSO PRESENT:
` Steven F. Borsand, Trading Technologies
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`Page 5
`
` INDEX
` WITNESS EXAMINATION BY PAGE
` RICHARD HARTHEIMER Mr. Strang 8
`
`
` EXHIBITS
` HARTHEIMER
` NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
` Exhibit 1 Supplemental Declaration of
` Richard Hartheimer 67
`
` (Exhibits attached to transcript.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`09:29:00
`
`09:29:03
`
`09:29:06
`
`09:29:09
`
`09:29:12
`
`09:29:12
`
`09:29:17
`
`09:29:17
`
`09:29:19
`
`10
`
`09:29:22
`
`11
`
`09:29:24
`
`12
`
`09:29:24
`
`13
`
`09:29:27
`
`14
`
`09:29:27
`
`15
`
`09:29:29
`
`16
`
`09:29:29
`
`17
`
`09:29:29
`
`18
`
`09:29:32
`
`19
`
`09:29:32
`
`20
`
`09:29:32
`
`21
`
`09:29:42
`
`22
`
`Page 6
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` MR. STRANG: My name is Jonathan
` Strang, and with me I have Richard Bemben.
` And we are representing TD
` Ameritrade. We're with Sterne Kessler.
` MR. GOLDBERG: Joshua Goldberg, with
` Finnegan, for Trading Technologies.
` MS. LU: Jia Lu, for Trading
` Technologies.
` MS. EMSLEY: And Rachel Emsley, also
` for Trading Technologies.
` MR. BORSAND: Steve Borsand, for
` Trading Technologies.
` MR. GANNON: Mike Gannon, with
` McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff, for Trading
` Technologies.
` Whereupon,
` RICHARD HARTHEIMER,
` the Witness, called for examination, having been
` first duly sworn according to law, was examined and
` testified as follows:
` THE WITNESS: Before we start, I just
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`09:29:43
`
`09:29:44
`
`09:29:46
`
`09:29:48
`
`09:29:49
`
`09:29:50
`
`09:29:52
`
`09:29:52
`
`09:29:53
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`09:29:56
`
`10
`
`09:29:59
`
`11
`
`09:30:00
`
`12
`
`09:30:03
`
`13
`
`09:30:07
`
`14
`
`09:30:09
`
`15
`
`09:30:09
`
`16
`
`09:30:12
`
`17
`
`09:30:14
`
`18
`
`09:30:18
`
`19
`
`09:30:21
`
`20
`
`09:30:21
`
`21
`
`09:30:21
`
`22
`
`Page 7
`
` had a couple things.
` During the deposition, if I have to
` look at materials, I need to wear my reading
` glasses.
` MR. STRANG: Okay.
` THE WITNESS: So I'll be --
` MR. STRANG: Me, too.
` THE WITNESS: Yeah. So those will be
` coming on and off very frequently.
` Occasionally, I get restless legs.
` So occasionally what I'm going to do
` is just stand up in place for a few minutes and sit
` back down. Don't let me -- don't let that bother
` anyone, please.
` MR. STRANG: Oh, certainly.
` Certainly. And if you need a break or anything,
` just let your attorney know. And we'll finish the
` line of questioning and take a break at the soonest
` possible stopping point.
` THE WITNESS: Super.
` EXAMINATION
` BY MR. STRANG:
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`09:30:21
`
`09:30:24
`
`09:30:24
`
`09:30:25
`
`09:30:26
`
`09:30:27
`
`09:30:31
`
`09:30:34
`
`09:30:36
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`09:30:39
`
`10
`
`09:30:42
`
`11
`
`09:30:44
`
`12
`
`09:30:47
`
`13
`
`09:30:50
`
`14
`
`09:30:53
`
`15
`
`09:30:57
`
`16
`
`09:30:58
`
`17
`
`09:31:01
`
`18
`
`09:31:04
`
`19
`
`09:31:05
`
`20
`
`09:31:07
`
`21
`
`09:31:09
`
`22
`
`Page 8
`
` Q. Have you been deposed before,
` Mr. Hartheimer?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How many times?
` A. Once.
` Q. And for what case was that?
` A. That was a case to do with what's known as
` the "Togher" patent.
` Q. Okay. Did that involve the same patents
` that are at issue today?
` A. Could you go over those, what patents you
` had in mind.
` Q. Well, I was -- did it involve the Trading
` Technologies Patent No. -- pardon me -- Patent
` No. 7,685,055?
` A. No.
` Q. And Trading Technologies Patent
` No. 7,533,056?
` A. No.
` Q. So you've never given testimony involving
` those two patents?
` A. That's correct. Not in a deposition.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`09:31:13
`
`09:31:14
`
`09:31:15
`
`09:31:16
`
`09:31:20
`
`09:31:24
`
`09:31:25
`
`09:31:28
`
`09:31:31
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`09:31:35
`
`10
`
`09:31:41
`
`11
`
`09:31:43
`
`12
`
`09:31:44
`
`13
`
`09:31:46
`
`14
`
`09:31:48
`
`15
`
`09:31:51
`
`16
`
`09:31:51
`
`17
`
`09:31:52
`
`18
`
`09:31:54
`
`19
`
`09:31:58
`
`20
`
`09:31:59
`
`21
`
`09:32:01
`
`22
`
`Page 9
`
` Q. Not in a deposition?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you given declaration testimony
` involving those two patents?
` A. Not directly.
` Q. Can you explain --
` A. Yeah. I've done other work for TT.
` I'm not aware whether it's those two --
` it's part of a family relating to those patents, but
` not those patents.
` Q. And you understand you're testifying under
` oath?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And as a part of your oath, you must
` testify fully and accurately and to the best of your
` knowledge.
` Do you understand that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And in this deposition, I'm going to ask
` the questions and you're going to give the answers.
` And the court reporter will record them.
` If you nod -- like just now you nodded,
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`09:32:04
`
`09:32:08
`
`09:32:10
`
`09:32:14
`
`09:32:14
`
`09:32:15
`
`09:32:16
`
`09:32:18
`
`09:32:37
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`09:32:39
`
`10
`
`09:32:44
`
`11
`
`09:32:48
`
`12
`
`09:32:59
`
`13
`
`09:33:01
`
`14
`
`09:33:03
`
`15
`
`09:33:09
`
`16
`
`09:33:10
`
`17
`
`09:33:11
`
`18
`
`09:33:12
`
`19
`
`09:33:12
`
`20
`
`09:33:19
`
`21
`
`09:33:21
`
`22
`
`Page 10
` which is, you know, polite society, of course.
` But that won't show up on the transcript.
` So we do need you to say "yes" or "no."
` Do you understand?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is there any reason you could not give
` full and accurate testimony today?
` A. No reason.
` Q. The next exhibit is U.S. Patent
` No. 7,685,055 to Brumfield.
` It's been previously marked TDA 1001 for
` the CBM of this patent.
` MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
` Q. Do you recognize this document,
` Mr. Hartfeld -- excuse me, Hartheimer?
` Is that Dr. Hartheimer? I don't want to
` get it wrong.
` A. No -- no, no.
` Q. Okay.
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. I certainly recognize the first page and
` so on.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`09:33:21
`
`09:33:26
`
`09:33:27
`
`09:33:32
`
`09:33:33
`
`09:33:39
`
`09:33:45
`
`09:33:45
`
`09:34:00
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`09:34:05
`
`10
`
`09:34:05
`
`11
`
`09:34:12
`
`12
`
`09:34:13
`
`13
`
`09:34:14
`
`14
`
`09:34:15
`
`15
`
`09:34:16
`
`16
`
`09:34:18
`
`17
`
`09:34:20
`
`18
`
`09:34:21
`
`19
`
`09:34:22
`
`20
`
`09:34:24
`
`21
`
`09:34:29
`
`22
`
`Page 11
` I'm making the assumption the rest of the
` document is what you say it is.
` Q. So you have reviewed the '055 patent to
` Brumfield before?
` A. Before today, yes.
` Q. Could you turn to Claim 1, which is in
` Column 34.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you see the first line of Claim 1?
` Yeah -- please.
` I need the reading glasses, too.
` A. Line 1 --
` Q. Yes.
` A. -- of the claim; is that what you're
` asking?
` Q. Yeah. The first line of the claim, do you
` see where it says: A method for repositioning a
` static price axis?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you agree that Claim 1 is directed to
` repositioning a static price axis?
` (Witness perusing.)
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`09:35:19
`
`09:35:21
`
`09:35:22
`
`09:35:26
`
`09:35:29
`
`09:35:36
`
`09:35:40
`
`09:35:42
`
`09:35:44
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`09:35:45
`
`10
`
`09:35:47
`
`11
`
`09:35:50
`
`12
`
`09:35:52
`
`13
`
`09:35:57
`
`14
`
`09:36:01
`
`15
`
`09:36:03
`
`16
`
`09:36:06
`
`17
`
`09:36:06
`
`18
`
`09:36:11
`
`19
`
`09:36:12
`
`20
`
`09:36:26
`
`21
`
`09:36:28
`
`22
`
`Page 12
` A. It is about all the things that it says in
` Claim 1.
` The first line says it's a method for
` repositioning a static price axis.
` Q. Okay. And down on line 60, 6-0, of the
` same column is the step that starts: Receiving the
` reposition command.
` And this is the same Claim 1.
` Do you see that step?
` A. I see line 60, yes.
` Q. Now, in that step, the step states:
` Receiving the reposition command to reposition the
` static price axis when a designated price is within
` a designated number of price levels from the lowest
` value or the highest value -- and so forth.
` Do you agree that that step -- strike
` that.
` What is a "designated price" as recited in
` that step?
` MR. GOLDBERG: Objection; scope.
` A. Would you please repeat the question.
` Q. The claim states: Receiving the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`09:36:31
`
`09:36:35
`
`09:36:39
`
`09:36:41
`
`09:37:13
`
`09:37:14
`
`09:37:14
`
`09:38:10
`
`09:38:13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`09:38:19
`
`10
`
`09:38:22
`
`11
`
`09:38:27
`
`12
`
`09:38:31
`
`13
`
`09:38:31
`
`14
`
`09:39:03
`
`15
`
`09:42:37
`
`16
`
`09:42:40
`
`17
`
`09:42:43
`
`18
`
`09:42:47
`
`19
`
`09:42:49
`
`20
`
`09:42:54
`
`21
`
`09:42:55
`
`22
`
`Page 13
` reposition command to reposition the static price
` axis when a designated price is within a designated
` number of price levels -- and then it continues.
` What do the words "designated price" mean?
` MR. GOLDBERG: I repeat the
` objection.
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. May I refer to a copy of my declaration?
` MR. STRANG: Certainly.
` Let the record show this is marked as
` Trading Technologies Exhibit 2102 in the Proceeding
` CBM2014-00137.
` MR. GOLDBERG: Thanks for the extras,
` Jon.
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. I have not considered what -- in the
` course of my analysis -- what the term "designated
` price" means in the context of the patent.
` Q. But you opined on whether or not the art
` teaches this reposition command. Correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So how did you do that without deciding
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`09:42:57
`
`09:42:58
`
`09:43:02
`
`09:43:05
`
`09:43:07
`
`09:43:08
`
`09:43:11
`
`09:43:14
`
`09:43:16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`09:43:19
`
`10
`
`09:43:22
`
`11
`
`09:43:24
`
`12
`
`09:43:27
`
`13
`
`09:43:29
`
`14
`
`09:43:35
`
`15
`
`09:43:37
`
`16
`
`09:43:37
`
`17
`
`09:43:39
`
`18
`
`09:43:41
`
`19
`
`09:44:19
`
`20
`
`09:44:30
`
`21
`
`09:44:34
`
`22
`
`Page 14
`
` what the designated price is?
` A. I didn't feel I needed to define
` "designated price" in order to do that.
` Q. What definition of "designated price" did
` you use in your analysis?
` A. I didn't feel I needed any definition of
` "designated price" to do my analysis.
` Q. Did you just use the ordinary meaning?
` A. No. I didn't need a -- I didn't feel I
` needed to use the term "designated price" to do my
` analysis.
` Q. Do you see that the claim step recites:
` Responsive -- receiving the reposition command to
` reposition the static price axis when a designated
` price is within a designated number of price
` levels....
` How did you look at the art and decide
` what is in the designated price and whether or not
` it's within a designated number of price levels?
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. I simply made the assumption that it was
` some price that was designated.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`09:44:39
`
`09:44:44
`
`09:44:47
`
`09:44:51
`
`09:44:51
`
`09:44:53
`
`09:45:00
`
`09:45:01
`
`09:45:03
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`09:45:08
`
`10
`
`09:45:10
`
`11
`
`09:45:13
`
`12
`
`09:45:14
`
`13
`
`09:45:16
`
`14
`
`09:47:40
`
`15
`
`09:47:40
`
`16
`
`09:47:40
`
`17
`
`09:47:40
`
`18
`
`09:47:40
`
`19
`
`09:47:40
`
`20
`
`09:47:40
`
`21
`
`09:47:40
`
`22
`
`Page 15
` Q. So we can agree that the definition of the
` term "designated price" is a price that's been
` designated?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you agree that the claim does not
` expressly recite any limitations on that price?
` A. Could you repeat the question, please.
` Q. Do you agree that the claim does not
` expressly recite any limitations on what price may
` be designated as the designated price?
` MR. GOLDBERG: Objection; scope.
` MR. STRANG: Counsel, he opines on
` whether or not the art teaches the step.
` I don't think it's beyond the scope.
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. Would you do me a favor, please, and
` repeat the question.
` MR. STRANG: Certainly.
` Court Reporter, could you mark the
` time I asked the question originally. Was it 9:45?
` COURT REPORTER: I'll have to put on
` my time stamps, in just one second.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`09:47:40
`
`09:47:40
`
`09:47:40
`
`10:00:34
`
`10:00:34
`
`10:00:59
`
`10:01:00
`
`10:01:01
`
`10:01:07
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:01:08
`
`10
`
`10:01:09
`
`11
`
`10:01:11
`
`12
`
`10:01:13
`
`13
`
`10:01:14
`
`14
`
`10:01:16
`
`15
`
`10:01:19
`
`16
`
`10:01:23
`
`17
`
`10:01:26
`
`18
`
`10:01:27
`
`19
`
`10:01:30
`
`20
`
`10:01:33
`
`21
`
`10:01:34
`
`22
`
`Page 16
` MR. STRANG: Yeah, we would like a
` time-stamped transcript.
` COURT REPORTER: Yeah, I'll do that.
` I don't have my time stamps on. So
` let me go ahead and turn those on.
` MR. STRANG: Okay. Let the record
` show the time stamp, according to what I have here
` is: I asked the question at 9:45 and 4 seconds.
` And it is now 10:01 and 2 seconds.
` MR. GOLDBERG: Counsel, I'm just
` going to clarify for the record that you indicated
` before that he had opined on this step.
` But in fact, if you actually look at
` his declaration -- and specifically in
` paragraph~19 -- he did not opine on this entire
` step, but rather only opined on a very specific
` limitation related to designated number of price
` levels from the lowest value or the highest value
` along the static price axis, a limitation which does
` not once recite the designated price.
` MR. STRANG: What is that designated
` number of price levels in reference to, Counsel?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`10:01:46
`
`10:01:46
`
`10:01:46
`
`10:01:46
`
`10:01:49
`
`10:01:50
`
`10:01:53
`
`10:02:00
`
`10:02:01
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:02:04
`
`10
`
`10:02:07
`
`11
`
`10:02:10
`
`12
`
`10:02:10
`
`13
`
`10:02:12
`
`14
`
`10:02:17
`
`15
`
`10:02:20
`
`16
`
`10:02:21
`
`17
`
`10:02:23
`
`18
`
`10:02:25
`
`19
`
`10:02:27
`
`20
`
`10:02:29
`
`21
`
`10:02:32
`
`22
`
`Page 17
` The claim says that it repositions
` when a designated price is within a designated
` number of price levels.
` So absent knowing what the designated
` price is, you cannot determine whether or not
` anything -- you don't know what to compare it within
` the designated number of levels.
` MR. GOLDBERG: Again, I'll just
` repeat: The witness did not opine on that specific
` term and did not deal with defining the metes and
` bounds of the claim in any way with respect to this
` particular term.
` MR. STRANG: So he compared the art
` to this claim step without deciding what has to be
` within a designated number of price levels.
` MR. GOLDBERG: Again, the witness did
` not look at the entire step.
` If you look at paragraph 19 of the
` declaration, it specifically refers to just the
` designated number of price levels from the lowest
` value or the highest value along the static price
` axis.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`10:02:33
`
`10:02:35
`
`10:02:35
`
`10:02:36
`
`10:02:40
`
`10:02:53
`
`10:02:54
`
`10:02:58
`
`10:02:58
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:02:59
`
`10
`
`10:03:03
`
`11
`
`10:03:03
`
`12
`
`10:03:05
`
`13
`
`10:03:08
`
`14
`
`10:03:11
`
`15
`
`10:03:11
`
`16
`
`10:03:12
`
`17
`
`10:03:13
`
`18
`
`10:03:14
`
`19
`
`10:03:16
`
`20
`
`10:03:16
`
`21
`
`10:03:18
`
`22
`
`Page 18
` That's the extent of his opinion in
` this regard in paragraph 19 in his declaration.
` MR. STRANG: So he doesn't -- he
` never opines on what has to be within a designated
` number of price levels?
` MR. GOLDBERG: Well, he does refer to
` the lowest value or the highest level along the
` static price axis.
` MR. STRANG: Well, that's with -- a
` designated price levels is from.
` But that boundary is set from the
` lowest value or the highest value.
` What has to be within the designated
` number of price levels from the highest or lowest
` value?
` MR. GOLDBERG: I'm not the one who's
` here to testify.
` The opinion says what it says.
` And --
` MR. STRANG: Okay.
` MR. GOLDBERG: -- the board can sort
` that issue out.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`10:03:18
`
`10:03:19
`
`10:03:22
`
`10:03:26
`
`10:03:29
`
`10:03:40
`
`10:03:42
`
`10:03:43
`
`10:03:46
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:03:46
`
`10
`
`10:03:46
`
`11
`
`10:03:50
`
`12
`
`10:03:54
`
`13
`
`10:03:56
`
`14
`
`10:03:57
`
`15
`
`10:04:31
`
`16
`
`10:06:04
`
`17
`
`10:06:06
`
`18
`
`10:06:11
`
`19
`
`10:06:13
`
`20
`
`10:06:15
`
`21
`
`10:06:17
`
`22
`
`Page 19
`
` BY MR. STRANG:
` Q. The pending question is: Do you agree
` that the claim does not expressly recite any
` limitations on what price may be designated as the,
` quote, designated price?
` A. Okay. I believe the claim has to be taken
` in the context of these --
` Q. But that's not my question.
` We're starting at the claim language.
` We'll move on to what's in the specification next.
` Does the claim say anything about what
` price -- does the claim limit in any way what price
` may be designated as the designated price?
` A. Are you talking about Claim 1?
` Q. Yes.
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. The words "designated price" do not --
` does not appear elsewhere in Claim 1.
` Q. So there's no further limitations on what
` price may be designated as a designated price.
` Correct?
` A. That's not what I said.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`10:06:19
`
`10:06:21
`
`10:06:26
`
`10:06:28
`
`10:06:31
`
`10:06:31
`
`10:06:35
`
`10:06:36
`
`10:06:40
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:06:43
`
`10
`
`10:06:47
`
`11
`
`10:06:50
`
`12
`
`10:06:52
`
`13
`
`10:06:57
`
`14
`
`10:07:03
`
`15
`
`10:07:05
`
`16
`
`10:07:06
`
`17
`
`10:07:08
`
`18
`
`10:07:17
`
`19
`
`10:07:41
`
`20
`
`10:07:43
`
`21
`
`10:07:48
`
`22
`
`Page 20
` Q. Well, what's the difference between what
` you said and what I said?
` A. I was simply talking about the language of
` the claim -- the words in the claim.
` Q. Exactly.
` A. Yes. Your question, again -- your second
` question...?
` Q. ...is: So the claim does not have any
` further limitations on what price may be designated
` as the designated price. Correct?
` A. I can only tell you what the claim says.
` I don't -- I have not considered whether
` the claim has limitations or not limitations with
` respect to the designated price.
` Q. Do the claims give any examples of a
` designated price?
` A. Are you asking of any of the claims?
` Q. Yes.
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. Without reading all of the claims, I
` notice that Claim 2 says: The method of Claim 1
` further comprising the step of establishing the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`10:07:51
`
`10:07:55
`
`10:07:56
`
`10:07:58
`
`10:08:18
`
`10:08:21
`
`10:08:25
`
`10:08:28
`
`10:08:30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:08:48
`
`10
`
`10:08:50
`
`11
`
`10:08:56
`
`12
`
`10:09:01
`
`13
`
`10:09:05
`
`14
`
`10:09:09
`
`15
`
`10:09:13
`
`16
`
`10:09:22
`
`17
`
`10:09:25
`
`18
`
`10:09:29
`
`19
`
`10:09:31
`
`20
`
`10:09:33
`
`21
`
`10:09:57
`
`22
`
`Page 21
` designated price is based on a last trade price for
` the commodity.
` Q. So an example of designated price would be
` the last trade price of the commodity. Correct?
` A. It's simply the -- what the designated
` price is based on in Claim 2.
` Q. What do you mean by "based on"?
` A. It says the word "based on."
` Q. Do you know what those words mean?
` A. No; I haven't considered exactly what
` those words mean.
` Q. Now, Claim 1 continues, in that same
` receiving or reposition command step that we've been
` discussing: Receiving the reposition command to
` reposition the static price axis when a designated
` price is within a designated number of price levels.
` Do you see the term "designated number of
` price levels" in that step?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What do the words "designated number"
` mean?
` A. Sorry. Did you say something?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`10:09:59
`
`10:10:01
`
`10:10:04
`
`10:10:43
`
`10:10:46
`
`10:10:47
`
`10:10:48
`
`10:10:50
`
`10:10:52
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:11:28
`
`10
`
`10:11:31
`
`11
`
`10:11:35
`
`12
`
`10:11:38
`
`13
`
`10:11:40
`
`14
`
`10:11:42
`
`15
`
`10:12:01
`
`16
`
`10:12:04
`
`17
`
`10:12:06
`
`18
`
`10:12:43
`
`19
`
`10:12:46
`
`20
`
`10:12:53
`
`21
`
`10:12:57
`
`22
`
`Page 22
` Q. I just told the court reporter I'd give
` her a copy of the patent afterwards.
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. "Designated number" is a determined
` number.
` Q. It's a determined number?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is there any limit to what number can be
` designated?
` A. I haven't considered whether there's any
` limit to the number -- I'm sorry. I didn't quite
` catch your question -- of the number -- the "W7"
` number designated?
` Q. Yeah. Do the claims limit what numbers
` can be designated as the designated number?
` A. I have not considered whether that limit
` exists or not.
` Q. Could the designated number be two?
` A. I think one has to look at the claims in
` the context of the rest of the patent, etc.
` And that designation and any limit thereof
` would have to come from other information in the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`10:13:04
`
`10:13:04
`
`10:13:06
`
`10:13:07
`
`10:13:09
`
`10:13:51
`
`10:13:57
`
`10:14:00
`
`10:14:01
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:18:36
`
`10
`
`10:18:40
`
`11
`
`10:18:42
`
`12
`
`10:18:47
`
`13
`
`10:18:51
`
`14
`
`10:18:53
`
`15
`
`10:18:54
`
`16
`
`10:18:55
`
`17
`
`10:18:57
`
`18
`
`10:19:03
`
`19
`
`10:19:05
`
`20
`
`10:22:02
`
`21
`
`10:22:04
`
`22
`
`Page 23
`
` patent.
` Q. Well, please look at the rest of the
` patent and answer the question.
` Could the designated number be two?
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. In some of the examples in the patent, the
` designation could be two.
` Q. Could it be ten?
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. I think the allowable numbers depend on
` the -- and I'm reading the parts of the
` specification -- depend on the nature of the screen
` and how many prices there are, etc., etc.
` Q. What portion of the patent are you looking
` at?
` A. The specification.
` Q. Yeah. What page? What column?
` A. I was looking at lots of them. I would
` have to go find them again.
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. I was looking at, among other things,
` Column 9.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`10:22:19
`
`10:22:21
`
`10:22:25
`
`10:22:29
`
`10:22:32
`
`10:22:35
`
`10:22:37
`
`10:22:40
`
`10:22:44
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:22:47
`
`10
`
`10:22:50
`
`11
`
`10:22:52
`
`12
`
`10:22:54
`
`13
`
`10:22:56
`
`14
`
`10:22:58
`
`15
`
`10:23:03
`
`16
`
`10:23:06
`
`17
`
`10:23:07
`
`18
`
`10:23:09
`
`19
`
`10:23:14
`
`20
`
`10:23:16
`
`21
`
`10:23:20
`
`22
`
`Page 24
`
` Q. Where in Column 9?
` A. Starting in -- the paragraph starting in
` line 21.
` Q. And what does it say there?
` A. (Reading:) As the market ascends or
` descends, the price column, the inside market
` working order's last traded price and/or quantity or
` any other item that might be of interest might go
` above or below the price column displayed on a
` trader's screen.
` Q. Okay. And I don't see the words
` "designated price" there.
` Where do you see the words "designated
` price"?
` A. I don't.
` Q. Oh, pardon me. "Designated number."
` Where does it say the word "designated
` number"?
` A. It does not say "designated number."
` Q. Are there any other places that you see
` that you think limit the number of -- which numbers
` can be designated?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`10:23:21
`
`10:23:23
`
`10:23:27
`
`10:23:29
`
`10:23:29
`
`10:24:33
`
`10:24:36
`
`10:24:38
`
`10:24:42
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:24:44
`
`10
`
`10:24:48
`
`11
`
`10:24:51
`
`12
`
`10:24:54
`
`13
`
`10:24:57
`
`14
`
`10:25:00
`
`15
`
`10:25:04
`
`16
`
`10:25:08
`
`17
`
`10:25:16
`
`18
`
`10:25:19
`
`19
`
`10:25:21
`
`20
`
`10:25:25
`
`21
`
`10:25:28
`
`22
`
`Page 25
` A. I would have to read through the whole
` specification again to be sure.
` Q. Please do. We have two days.
` A. Okay.
` (Witness perusing.)
` A. Okay. Another place is in the abstract.
` Q. Okay. What does it say there?
` A. (Reading:) A method for automatically
` positioning information related to a commodity on a
` graphical user interface, market information is
` displayed on the graphical user interface. The
` market information may be presented as a number of
` indicators corresponding to particular items of
` interest that are associated with a static scale.
` The scale may for example represent price. Upon
` detecting a predetermined condition, location of the
` market information is automatically repositioned.
` Q. Do you see the term "designated number"
` anywhere there?
` A. No.
` Q. So let's go back to my other question.
` Can a designated number be ten?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/29/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Richard Hartheimer
`
`10:25:32
`
`10:25:37
`
`10:25:39
`
`10:25:41
`
`10:25:41
`
`10:25:42
`
`10:25:44
`
`10:25:46
`
`10:25:48
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10:25:51
`
`10
`
`10:25:53
`
`11
`
`10:25:55
`
`12
`
`10:26:04
`
`13
`
`10:26:05
`
`14
`
`10:26:07
`
`15
`
`10:26:08
`
`16
`
`10:26:16
`
`17
`
`10:26:18
`
`18
`
`10:26:20
`
`19
`
`10:26:42
`
`20
`
`10:26:47
`
`21
`
`10:26:51
`
`22
`
`Page 26
`
` A. I don't know.
` Q. You don't know if the designated number
` could be ten.
` Is that correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. But you didn't point to any language that
` said it could not be ten, did you?
` A. I did not point to any language that said
` it could not be ten.
` That doesn't mean that that does not exist
` or might be elsewhere, etc.