`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. ______
`Filed: June 5, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE, INC., and
`TD AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`
`Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1023,
`
`
`
`served with Petitioner’s Reply (Paper No. 51). Patent Owner objects to Exhibit
`
`1023 (Supplemental Declaration of Kendyl A. Román in Support of Petitioners’
`
`Reply for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent 7,685,055) because
`
`portions of the Exhibit lack relevance (FRE 402), as they exceed the proper scope
`
`of Petitioner’s Reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) states “[a] reply may only respond to
`
`arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” As explained in
`
`the Trial Practice Guide, “new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case
`
`for [] unpatentability” and “new evidence that could have been presented in a prior
`
`filing” are improper. 77 Fed. Reg. 48767. Patent Owner further objects to Exhibit
`
`1023 because of the prejudice resulting from Patent Owner’s inability to respond to
`
`the untimely evidence and arguments therein (FRE 403). For example, at least
`
`paragraphs 3-6, 8-16, and 18-23 of Exhibit 1023 exceed the proper scope of
`
`Petitioner’s Reply and are thus irrelevant, untimely, prejudicial, and objectionable
`
`under FRE 402 and FRE 403.
`
`Dated: June 5, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joshua L. Goldberg/
`Joshua L. Goldberg, Backup Counsel
`Registration No. 59,369
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Owner’s Objections to Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 was served on
`
`June 5, 2015, via email directed to counsel of record for the Petitioner at the
`
`following:
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`
`Jonathan M. Strang
`jstrang-ptab@skgf.com
`
`Robert E. Sokohl
`rsokohl-ptab@skgf.com
`
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Bradley J. Moore/
`Bradley J. Moore
`Litigation Clerk
`
`
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`