`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`____________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Relief Requested .............................................................................................. 1
`
`The Board should exclude TT’s district court demonstratives (Exs. 2007 and
`2202) ................................................................................................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`These two documents are demonstratives from District Court
`proceedings used here to show the truth of the matters asserted .......... 2
`
`The Board should exclude these demonstratives as inadmissible
`hearsay ................................................................................................... 3
`
`The Board should exclude these presentations for lack of personal
`knowledge and as improper expert testimony ....................................... 4
`
`The Board should exclude these demonstratives for lack of
`authenticity and as improper summaries ............................................... 5
`
`E.
`
`The Board should exclude these demonstratives as irrelevant ............. 5
`
`III. The Board should exclude the Thomas Report (Exs. 2010 and 2201) ............ 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Because Mr. Thomas did not adopt his Report as his testimony in this
`proceeding, the Board should exclude it as inadmissible hearsay ........ 6
`
`The Board should exclude as hearsay the portions of the Thomas
`Reports that act as a conduit for the expunged Brumfield hearsay ....... 7
`
`The Board should exclude as hearsay the portions of the Thomas
`Reports that act as a conduit for other hearsay statements ................... 8
`
`The Board should exclude the Thomas Report for a lack of personal
`knowledge and as irrelevant and a waste of time .................................. 8
`
`IV. The Board should exclude TT’s HCI website printouts (Exs. 2011 - 2019) ... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`These documents are printout of web pages allegedly describing HCI
`programs, and are used to show that HCIs are technological ............... 9
`
`The Board should exclude these printouts as inadmissible hearsay ...10
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`The Board should exclude these printouts for lack of authenticity ....10
`
`
`
`C.
`
`V.
`
`The Board should exclude TT’s video animation (Ex. 2203) .......................10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`This video clip is a short cartoon that is used to show how actual
`products operated, but there is no evidence that it accurately does so11
`
`The Board should exclude this animation as inadmissible hearsay ....11
`
`The Board should exclude this animation for lack of personal
`knowledge and as improper expert testimony .....................................12
`
`VI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases:
`
`United States v. Dukagjinih,
`326 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2003) ......................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Exh. No.
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055 to Brumfield et al. (“the ʼ055 patent”)
`File History of Application Ser. No. 11/417,547, which became the
`’055 patent, as filed and obtained from PAIR (“File History”)
`Expert Declaration of Kendyl A. Román (“Román Decl.”)
`Expert Declaration of David Rho (“Rho Decl.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,077,665 to Silverman et al. (“Silverman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterman et al. (“Gutterman”)
`“Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation
`Guide” (“TSE JP”)
`Certified English-language Translation of “Futures/Option
`Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE”)
`Certificate of Translation for “Futures/Option Purchasing System
`Trading Terminal Operation Guide” (“O’Connell Affidavit”)
`Memorandum from James M. Hilmert to eSpeed file regarding
`direct examination of TSE’s 30(b)(6) witness, dated December 5,
`2005 (“Depo. Letter”)
`Deposition Transcript of Atsushi Kawashima, Trading Technologies
`International, Inc., v. eSPEED, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312, United
`States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
`dated November 21, 2005 (“Depo. Transcript”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Kendyl A. Román
`List of Materials Considered by Kendyl A. Román
`Curriculum Vitae of David Rho
`List of Materials Considered by David Rho
`Official Transcript of Conference Call held January 20, 2015
`Declaration of Ronald E. Skidmore
`Declaration of Maho Taniguchi-Speller
`Declaration of Eiken Hino
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Exh. No.
`1020
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`1034
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`Description
`Declaration Akiko Rosenberry
`Declaration of Courtney O’Connell (“O’Connell Decl.”)
`April 16, 2015 Hearing Transcript
`Supplemental Declaration of Kendyl A. Román (“Suppl. Román
`Decl.”)
`Excerpts of Trial Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. 11-A, Trading
`Tech’s Int’l v. eSpeed Inc., et al. Case No. 04-cv-5312 (N.D. Ill.),
`held September 26, 2007. (“eSpeed Tr. Vol. 11”)
`Excerpts of Trial Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. 17-A, Trading
`Tech’s Int’l v. eSpeed Inc., et al. Case No. 04-cv-5312 (N.D. Ill.),
`held October 4, 2007. (“eSpeed Tr. Vol. 17”)
`Excerpts of Trial Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. 12-A, Trading
`Tech’s Int’l v. eSpeed Inc., et al. Case No. 04-cv-5312 (N.D. Ill.),
`held September 27, 2007. (“eSpeed Tr. Vol. 12”)
`Summary of Facts and Submissions directed to European Patent
`Application No. 01 920 183.9, mailed September 30, 2010 (“EPO
`Summary of Facts and Submissions”)
`Deposition Transcript of Harold Abilock held April 24, 2015
`(“Abilock Tr.”)
`Deposition Transcript of Richard Hartheimer held April 29, 2015
`(“Hartheimer Tr.”)
`Proprietor’s Response to Communication Pursuant to Article 101(1)
`and Rule 81(2) to (3) EPC, dated June 14, 2011 (“EPO Response”)
`Petitioners’ Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence Pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) dated December 16, 2014
`Petitioners’ Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence Pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) dated March 13, 2015
`Declaration of Jay Knoblock
`Deposition Transcript of Chris Thomas
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Relief Requested
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`Petitioner TD Ameritrade asks the Board to exclude over a dozen
`
`inadmissible exhibits to remove them from the record. It is not enough for the
`
`Board to find that this motion is moot because the Board did not rely on the
`
`inadmissible exhibits in making its final written decision. If the exhibits remain in
`
`the record, Patent Owner TT will be able to cite them again on appeal to the
`
`Federal Circuit, and TD Ameritrade will be unfairly forced to face them again.
`
`This would be especially unfair here, where TT deliberately deluged the
`
`Board and TD Ameritrade with over a dozen inadmissible exhibits, knowing that
`
`TD Ameritrade would be forced to use up valuable briefing space to address the
`
`exhibits on the merits despite their evidentiary shortcomings. TT’s downpour
`
`included over 200 pages of district court demonstratives, an expert report regarding
`
`other patents, an animated clip purportedly showing how TT’s product and the
`
`prior art operates (but without any evidence that the animations reflect actual
`
`software), and various unauthenticated and hearsay webpages. TD Ameritrade asks
`
`the Board to rid this proceeding of all of these inadmissible exhibits.
`
`II. The Board should exclude TT’s district court demonstratives (Exs. 2007
`and 2202)
`
`TD Ameritrade timely objected to these two demonstratives, each of which
`
`is over 100 pages of additional briefing submitted into this proceeding in the guise
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`of evidence. 1st Objections at 4-6 (Ex. 1031); 2d Objections at 2-3 (Ex. 1032). At
`
`
`
`best, these two demonstratives show what TT previously argued in previous
`
`proceedings. But TT is improperly using them here as evidence to support its
`
`factual assertions. The Board should therefore exclude these two demonstratives as
`
`inadmissible hearsay (FRE 802), for lack of personal knowledge (FRE 602), as
`
`improper opinion testimony (FRE 701, 702), as improper and unauthenticated
`
`copies and summaries of other documents (FRE 901, 1002-1004, 1006), and as
`
`irrelevant, confusing and a waste of time (FRE 401, 403).
`
`A. These two documents are demonstratives from District Court
`proceedings used here to show the truth of the matters asserted
`
`Exhibit 2007 is a “Tutorial,” containing 119 pages of TT’s arguments in an
`
`unidentified proceeding between TT and GL Trade. TT relies on this exhibit to
`
`support its contentions that TT’s commercial product embodies its claimed
`
`invention, is commercially successful, and solved a problem. POPR at 1, 29 (citing
`
`slides 2, 8, 32, 34, 35-61); POR at 4 (citing slides 32, 34).
`
`Exhibit 2202 is a 112-page “Patent Eligible Subject Matter” presentation
`
`containing TT’s legal and factual arguments that the ’132 and ’304 patent claims
`
`are eligible for patenting because GUIs are technological and its alleged invention
`
`solved a problem, and is cited to support those same arguments regarding the ’411
`
`patent here. POR at 22 (citing 6052-56 as showing the claimed invention is in a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`technologic field). TT served an affidavit purporting to authenticate this document
`
`
`
`as being given “to the District Court in presenting arguments on patent eligibility
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Case No. 05-cv-4811.” Knoblock Decl. ¶ 3 (served as Ex.
`
`2212, filed as Ex. 1033). This affidavit, however, does not purport to establish that
`
`any of underlying excerpts and copies are what they claim to be. Rather, it
`
`confirms that Exhibit 2202 is 112 pages of additional attorney argument on the
`
`merits, despite being submitted here as an exhibit.
`
`B.
`
`The Board should exclude these demonstratives as inadmissible
`hearsay
`
`The Board should exclude both presentations because they are inadmissible
`
`hearsay and do not fall into any exceptions. FRE 802. They primarily consist of
`
`statements made outside this proceeding by whoever made the slides, and as
`
`explained in the previous section, TT is trying to use these statements to prove the
`
`truth of the matters asserted. FRE 801. Some of these statements are attributed to
`
`particular individuals. For example, TT argues that its claimed GUI is a new
`
`technology in a technological field. POR at 22 (citing Ex. 2202 at PTX 6052-56,
`
`which includes quotes attributed to various individuals). But these quoted
`
`statements, like all of those of the presentation drafter(s), were made outside of this
`
`proceeding (and therefore cross examination was not available under routine
`
`discovery), and so they are inadmissible hearsay.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`Also, Ex. 2007 contains quotes attributed to Mr. Brumfield, while other
`
`
`
`portions appear to indirectly rely on his trial testimony. E.g., Ex. 2007 at 28-33;
`
`Ex. 2202 at PTX 6045. But the Board expunged Mr. Brumfield’s testimony from
`
`the co-pending proceedings involving the ’132 and ’411 patents after TT withdrew
`
`its agreement to make him available for deposition. CBM2014-00135, Order at 2-3
`
`(Paper 41, May 15, 2015). TT cannot use these demonstratives as a conduit to
`
`insert his hearsay testimony into this evidentiary record.
`
`C. The Board should exclude these presentations for lack of personal
`knowledge and as improper expert testimony
`
`In addition, the Board should exclude both presentations because TT has not
`
`shown that the unnamed presentation drafters and the persons allegedly quoted
`
`possessed the requisite personal knowledge of the subject matter to support the
`
`statements made in the demonstratives. FRE 602. Further, portions of these
`
`presentations include what appears to be expert opinion testimony. E.g., Ex. 2007
`
`at 8-11, 16-17, 29-57; Ex. 2202 at 49-69. But TT has not even tried to established
`
`that the presentation drafter(s) and quoted persons had the expertise necessary to
`
`apply the law to the facts, or that they based their opinions on facts or data upon
`
`which an expert in the field would reasonably rely. FRE 702, 703. And TT may not
`
`evade the expert witness requirements of FRE 702 by designating these
`
`presentations as lay testimony under FRE 701. FRE 701 Committee Notes--2000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`Amendment (“Rule 701 has been amended to eliminate the risk that the reliability
`
`
`
`requirements set forth in Rule 702 will be evaded through the simple expedient of
`
`proffering an expert in lay witness clothing.”).
`
`D. The Board should exclude these demonstratives for lack of
`authenticity and as improper summaries
`
`The Board should also exclude both presentations because they contain
`
`myriad unauthenticated excerpts from other often unidentified documents and they
`
`are not proper summaries of those documents. FRE 1002-1004, 1006. And
`
`although TT provided a declaration establishing that Exhibit 2202 is a true and
`
`correct copy of a District Court demonstrative, Exhibit 2007 should be excluded
`
`because TT has not shown that it is a true and correct copy of anything.
`
`The Board should exclude these demonstratives as irrelevant
`
`E.
`The Board should exclude both presentations as irrelevant under FRE 401
`
`and thus inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing and as a waste of time under
`
`FRE 403 because the cited portions are not relevant to any issue in this proceeding.
`
`Specifically, Exhibit 2202 is expressly directed to other patents (the ’304 and the
`
`’132) with different claims, and Exhibit 2007 is not directed to any patent in
`
`particular, mentioning only the ’132 patent on one slide. Ex. 2007 at 75.
`
`III. The Board should exclude the Thomas Report (Exs. 2010 and 2201)
`Unlike in the other CBM proceedings involving TT’s patents, Mr. Thomas
`
`submitted only one Report in this proceeding, and TD Ameritrade timely objected
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`to this Report. 1st Objections at 4-6 (Ex. 1031). But he did not adopt that one
`
`
`
`Report as his testimony here, and TT did not make him available for cross-
`
`examination with respect to this proceeding. Thomas Depo Tr. at 17-18 (TT
`
`acknowledging that the Thomas deposition did not cover the ’055 patent
`
`proceeding) (Ex. 1034). Further, the Thomas Report addresses only the ’132 and
`
`’304 patents, not the ’055 patent. Id. at 17-18, 19-20. The Board should therefore
`
`exclude the Thomas Report as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 802), as irrelevant or
`
`confusing and a waste of time (FRE 401-403), and for lack of personal knowledge
`
`(FRE 602).
`
`A. Because Mr. Thomas did not adopt his Report as his testimony in
`this proceeding, the Board should exclude it as inadmissible
`hearsay
`
`In the other proceedings, TT submitted a last-minute declaration from
`
`Thomas adopting portions of one of his Reports as his testimony in this
`
`proceeding, and made him available for cross-examination. Because TT did not do
`
`the same here, the Board should exclude the entire Thomas Report as hearsay. FRE
`
`802. TT relies on the Thomas Report for the truth of the matter asserted to support
`
`its arguments that its product is successful and receives accolades, and how trading
`
`GUIs work. POPR at 29, 42; POR at 4. It is therefore hearsay as defined in FRE
`
`801, and it does not fall within any exceptions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`The Board should exclude as hearsay the portions of the Thomas
`Reports that act as a conduit for the expunged Brumfield hearsay
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Board should exclude paragraphs 31, 33 and 34 of the Thomas Report
`
`as hearsay because the Thomas Reports are acting as a conduit for the expunged
`
`Brumfield hearsay. FRE 802.
`
`An expert may normally base his opinion on hearsay if it is the type of
`
`evidence experts would reasonably rely upon. FRE 703. But expert testimony
`
`cannot be used as a vehicle to evade the hearsay requirement. United States v.
`
`Dukagjinih, 326 F.3d 45, 57-59 (2d Cir. 2003). What Brumfield was concerned
`
`with and what actions he took are beyond Thomas’s scope of expertise, and by
`
`repeating Brumfield’s testimony, Thomas has crossed the line from permissibly
`
`relying on hearsay to form his expert opinion to impermissibly being a mere
`
`conduit for hearsay. Id.
`
`The Board should therefore exclude these paragraphs rather than allow TT to
`
`use Thomas as a backdoor through which Brumfield’s expunged hearsay testimony
`
`enters this proceeding. This is especially true here, because TT promised to
`
`provide Mr. Brumfield for cross-examination in the other proceedings. But once
`
`the Thomas deposition was safely over, TT reneged on that promise, depriving TD
`
`Ameritrade the opportunity to cross-examine the best witness on this subject
`
`matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`C. The Board should exclude as hearsay the portions of the Thomas
`Reports that act as a conduit for other hearsay statements
`
`
`
`The Board should exclude paragraphs 32-34 of the Thomas Reports as
`
`hearsay because, as with the Brumfield portions discussed above, Thomas is
`
`impermissibly acting as a conduit for hearsay statements by quoting and
`
`paraphrasing statements made by various declarants in another proceeding. Mr.
`
`Thomas did not speak with these declarants, yet he paraphrased and liberally
`
`quoted their testimony and other similar testimony not of record in this proceeding.
`
`Thomas Report at ¶¶ 32-34. As in the previous section, this crosses the line from
`
`permissibly relying on hearsay to form an expert opinion to impermissibly acting
`
`as a conduit for hearsay. Dukagjinih, 326 F.3d at 57-59.
`
`D. The Board should exclude the Thomas Report for a lack of
`personal knowledge and as irrelevant and a waste of time
`
`The Board should exclude the Thomas Report because it does not address
`
`the ’055 patent, and even if it did, he did not review or opine upon the ’055 patent
`
`even though it is at issue in this proceeding. To the extent that the Thomas Report
`
`is tangentially related to the ’055 patent, it should be excluded as confusing and a
`
`waste of time because the Board and the parties must parse each of his statements
`
`and determine whether the differences between the ’055 patent’s claims and those
`
`of the ’132 and ’304 patents would have changed his opinion. This is something
`
`Mr. Thomas should have done, but did not.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`IV. The Board should exclude TT’s HCI website printouts (Exs. 2011 -
`2019)
`
`
`
`TD Ameritrade timely objected to these unauthenticated printouts of various
`
`webpages containing statements about Human-Computer Interface programs that
`
`TT uses to support its arguments regarding GUIs. 1st Objections at 11-15 (Ex.
`
`1031). The Board should therefore exclude these webpage printouts as
`
`inadmissible hearsay (FRE 802) and for lack of authentication (FRE 901).
`
`A. These documents are printout of web pages allegedly describing
`HCI programs, and are used to show that HCIs are technological
`
`These unauthenticated webpages ostensibly show that NASA and various
`
`universities have HCI programs, and TT improperly uses them here as support for
`
`its factual assertions that its own claimed GUI is technological and solves a
`
`technical problem. Exs. 2011-2019; POR at 22, 71-72; POPR at 31. For example,
`
`TT argues that “NASA includes a Human Systems Integration Division that covers
`
`several ‘technical areas,’” and that its claimed GUI is “just like the interfaces
`
`designed by NASA, which solve technical problems.” POR at 25, 71-72.
`
`Two of these printouts purport to show NASA’s webpages for its Human
`
`Systems Integration Division and its HCI group. Exs. 2011, 2012. The printouts do
`
`not have a web address and TT declined to provide any affidavit explaining who
`
`printed the webpages, when, and from what web site. The remaining printouts
`
`purport to describe the HCI or related programs offered by various educational
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`institutions. Exs. 2013-2019. For example, Ex. 2013 states that the University of
`
`
`
`Washington has a “HCI Degree Option” as part of its “Bachelor of Science in
`
`Human Centered Design & Engineering Program.”
`
`The Board should exclude these printouts as inadmissible hearsay
`
`B.
`The Board should exclude these printouts as inadmissible hearsay outside of
`
`any exception. FRE 802. The unnamed web page authors were not testifying in this
`
`proceeding, and as explained in the previous section, TT is using the statements on
`
`the printouts to prove the truth of the matter asserted. FRE 801.
`
`C. The Board should exclude these printouts for lack of authenticity
`The Board should exclude these exhibits for lack of authenticity because TT
`
`has not shown they are true and correct copies of the purported web pages. FRE
`
`901 (“To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of
`
`evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that
`
`the item is what the proponent claims it is.”). TT could have cured TD
`
`Ameritrade’s authenticity objection by timely filing supplemental evidence. But
`
`TT chose not to, and the Board should not excuse TT’s blatant disregard of 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.62 and the Federal Rules of evidence.
`
`V. The Board should exclude TT’s video animation (Ex. 2203)
`TD Ameritrade timely objected to this video of unknown provenance. 2d
`
`Objection at 4-6 (Ex. 1032). At best, this animation is attorney argument regarding
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`how TT’s product and the prior art operates. But TT is improperly using this
`
`
`
`animation as evidence of how some displays actually operate. The Board should
`
`therefore exclude this animation as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 802), for lack of
`
`personal knowledge (FRE 602), as improper opinion testimony (FRE 701/702), for
`
`lack of authenticity (FRE 901), and as an improper summary of other documents
`
`(FRE 1006).
`
`A. This video clip is a short cartoon that is used to show how actual
`products operated, but there is no evidence that it accurately does
`so
`
`This animation is essentially attorney argument used to support more
`
`attorney argument. TT relied on it to support its factual assertions regarding
`
`problems with the prior art and how prior art displays operate. POR at 27 n.4. The
`
`clip is a computer-generated cartoon purporting to show how actual software
`
`products -- TT’s and prior art -- operate. Ex. 2203. TT did not respond to any of
`
`TD Ameritrade’s timely objections, so there is no evidence showing who made this
`
`cartoon, and whether the animator(s) made it to show what TT’s attorneys
`
`described or by actually viewing and accurately capturing the operation of the
`
`actual products.
`
`The Board should exclude this animation as inadmissible hearsay
`
`B.
`The Board should exclude this animation as inadmissible hearsay that does
`
`not fall into any exception. FRE 802. As explained in the previous section, the clip
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00137
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`was made by unidentified animators who are not testifying in this proceeding, and
`
`
`
`TT is using the clip to prove the truth of the matter asserted -- that prior art
`
`products did not have a static price axis. FRE 801.
`
`C. The Board should exclude this animation for lack of personal
`knowledge and as improper expert testimony
`
`The Board should exclude this cartoon because TT has not shown that the
`
`unnamed animator(s) possessed personal knowledge of the subject matter of the
`
`videos. FRE 602. Also, this clip includes what should have been expert opinion
`
`testimony demonstrating how certain products actually work. But TT has not
`
`established that the unnamed animators possessed the necessary expertise or that
`
`they based the videos on facts or data upon which an expert in the field would
`
`reasonably rely. FRE 702, 703. Further, TT may not evade the expert witness
`
`requirements of FRE 702 by designating these presentations as lay testimony under
`
`FRE 701.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00137
`
`US. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`VI. Conclusion
`
`TT’s strategy here was to inundate the Board and TD Ameritrade in a deluge
`
`of inadmissible exhibits in the hopes of drowning out the actual issues. TT should
`
`not be rewarded for such tactics. For the above reasons, TD Ameritrade therefore
`
`asks the Board to exclude the aforementioned exhibits.
`
`Date: June 12, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`1 100 New York Avenue, NW.
`
`Washington, DC. 20005—3934
`(202) 371—2600
`
`
`
`J
`athan M. St n )
`egistration No. 61,724
`
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`egistration No. 50,633
`
`Robert E. Sok
`1, Registration No. 36,013
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`CBM2014—00137
`
`US. Pat. No. 7,685,055
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PETITIONERS’
`
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE and all associated exhibits were served electronically
`
`via e—mail on June 12, 2015, in their entirety on the following:
`
`Erika H. Arner (Lead Counsel)
`Joshua L. Goldberg (Back—up Counsel)
`Kevin D. Rodkey (Back-up Counsel)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`kevin.rodkey@finngan.com
`
`Steven F. Borsand (Back—up Counsel)
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES
`
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`steve.borsand@tradingtechnologies.com
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
` onathan M. Stran
`
`Registration N . 61,724
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`Date: June 12, 2015
`
`l 100 New York Avenue, NW.
`
`Washington, D.C.20005-3934
`(202) 371—2600
`
`20136711 .DOCX
`
`