Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _____________________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ____________________
` TRADESTATION GROUP, INC. and
` TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.,
` Petitioner,
` v.
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
` Patent Owner.
` ____________________
` Case CBM2015-00161
` Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 1 of 32
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2101
`TRADESTATION v TRADING TECH
`CBM2015-00161
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`2
`
` Thursday, March 17, 2016
` 2 o'clock p.m. EST
`
` Teleconference before the Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board, Judge Meredith C.
`Petravick presiding, the proceedings being
`recorded stenographically by Cynthia J.
`Conforti, CSR, CRR, (License 084-003064) of the
`State of Illinois, and transcribed under her
`direction.
`
`1 2
`
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 2 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S O F C O U N S E L:
` (All participants appearing by phone)
`
`On behalf of the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board:
` MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, ESQ.,
` JEREMY M. PLENZLER, ESQ.,
` SALLY MEDLEY, ESQ.,
` Administrative Patent Judges
`
`On behalf of Petitioners TradeStation Group,
`Inc., and TradeStation Securities, Inc.
` JOHN C. PHILLIPS, ESQ.
` Fish & Richardson
` 12390 El Camino Real
` San Diego, California 92130
` 858.678.5070
` phillips@fr.com
` - and -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 3 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`4
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S O F C O U N S E L
` (Cont'd)
`
` ADAM KESSEL, ESQ.
` 1 Marina Park Drive
` Boston, Massachusetts 02210
` 617.542.5070
` kessel@fr.com
`
`On behalf of Patent Owner Trading Technologies
`International, Inc.:
` ERIKA HARMON ARNER, ESQ.
` Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
` Dunner, LLP
` Two Freedom Square
` 11955 Freedom Drive
` Reston, Virginia 20190-5675
` (571) 203-2700
` erika.arner@finnegan.com
` -and-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 4 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`5
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S O F C O U N S E L
` (Cont'd)
`
` CORY C. BELL, ESQ.
` Two Seaport Lane
` Boston, MA 02210-2001
` 617.646.1600
` cory.bell@finnegan.com
` -and-
` JOSHUA L. GOLDBERG, ESQ.
` BRANDON C. RASH, ESQ.
` 901 New York Avenue, NW
` Washington, DC 20001-4413
` 202.408.4000
` joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
` brandon.rash@finnegan.com
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 5 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`6
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S O F C O U N S E L
` (Cont'd)
`
`On behalf of IBG LLC and Interactive Brokers,
`LLC
` MATTHEW A. ARGENTI, ESQ.
` Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
` Professional Corporation
` 650 Page Mill Road
` Palo Alto, California 94304-1050
` 650.493.9300
` - and -
` MICHAEL T. ROSATO, ESQ.
` 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
` Seattle, Washington 98104-7036
` 206.883.2500
` - and -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 6 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`7
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S O F C O U N S E L
` (Cont'd)
`
` ROBERT E. SOKOHL, ESQ.
` Sterne Kessler Goldstein Fox
` 1100 New York Ave. NW
` Suite 600
` Washington, DC 20005
` 202.371.2600
` rsokohl@skgf.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` Steve Borsand, Trading Technologies
` International, Inc.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 7 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Good afternoon.
`This is Judge Petravick. With me on the phone
`are Judge Medley and Judge Plenzler. We are
`here for CBM2015-0016. Can I know who is on
`the line for the patent owner?
` MS. ARNER: Hi, your Honor. This
`is Erika Arner, and I am lead counsel for
`patent owner, Trading Technologies, from
`Finnegan. I'm joined with -- I'm joined by
`Brandon Rash and Josh Goldberg and Corey Bell
`of Finnegan, also representing the patent
`owner. Anyone else on the line with us for
`patent owner?
` MR. BORSAND: Yes, Steve Borsand
`from Trading Technologies.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: From petitioner?
` (Simultaneous speaking.)
` MR. ROSATO: Mike Rosato for IBG.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: I'm sorry. I
`didn't catch that.
` MR. ROSATO: Mike Rosato for IBG.
` MR. PHILLIPS: John Phillips for
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 8 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`TradeStation.
` MR. KESSEL: And Adam Kessel for
`TradeStation.
` MR. SOKOHL: And Rob Sokohl for
`IBG.
` MR. ARGENTI: And Matt Argenti for
`IBG.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Is anybody else
`on the line?
` (No response.)
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Ms. Arner, you
`sent us an e-mail asking for authorization to
`file a motion to stay. However, the e-mail was
`a bit ambiguous. As to a motion to stay
`pending what? What is the basis for another
`authorization for a motion to stay?
` So we would like you to clarify
`your request. And then we would like you to
`tell us all the reasons why you think a
`motion -- that motion to stay would be
`appropriate in this case.
` MS. ARNER: Thank you,
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 9 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Judge Petravick. I'm happy to do so. And
`thank you for convening this call. I apologize
`if our e-mail was ambiguous, and I hope I can
`help clarify things for you today.
` The patent owner, Trading
`Technologies, plans to file a mandamus petition
`asking the Federal Circuit to stay this
`proceeding pending its decision in a co-pending
`appeal where the Court is considering the
`patentability of the '304 patent at issue here
`under Section 101, because the decision in that
`Federal Circuit appeal, either way, will be
`controlling over this CBM proceeding.
` The only issue in the co-pending
`Federal Circuit appeal is patentability under
`101, and the only institute of gravamen CBM is
`Section 101, patentability. The Federal
`Circuit's decision on this purely legal issue
`will therefore be dispositive in this matter,
`either way, as a matter of stare decisis.
` So today the patent owner is
`requesting authorization to file a motion to
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 10 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`stay this CBM while the Federal Circuit
`considers the mandamus petition that we plan to
`file. A shorter stay pending the mandamus
`petition is warranted because -- at least for
`the short time that the Federal Circuit is
`considering the mandamus petition, because
`there is prejudice mounting to Trading
`Technologies as each day passes with the
`response due date quickly approaching. This
`short stay would not pose harm to the
`petitioner, given the years that TradeStation
`waited to file its petition in the first place.
`And a short stay would promote the board's goal
`of providing a resolution that is not only
`speedy, but it is also just and inexpensive, as
`provided by the rules, and it would promote the
`statutory consideration of the efficient
`administration of the office, which is required
`by Section 326.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Could you tell
`us how long you would ask the stay to be?
` MS. ARNER: So the stay would be
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 11 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`would be -- we talked last time about a stay
`pending the appeal itself. We're talking today
`about a stay pending the mandamus petition, and
`so we think that would be a relatively short
`stay of perhaps a month, perhaps. It depends
`on the Federal Circuit docket.
` But mandamus petitions, by rule of
`the Federal Circuit, are placed on an expedited
`basis or expedited docket. And in recent cases
`the Court has been issuing briefing schedules
`or deciding mandamus petitions within a matter
`of weeks. And so the procedure would be the
`mandamus petition filing, and then the Court
`would likely either decide it quickly or put
`out a briefing schedule. And its briefing
`schedule is usually about a week per side for
`briefing the mandamus petition.
` So it's a very quick process, and
`it seems that it would be only a short stay.
`And that would allow -- allow the board to
`minimize the prejudice that's mounting against
`Trading Technologies right now while the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 12 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Federal Circuit determines the propriety of its
`stay, pending its own decision in the 101
`appeal, which the board considered in our last
`call.
` Just to be clear, we would rather
`brief the whole motion to the board and allow
`you to decide it and on a full record with
`briefing from both of the parties here.
` But given that the authorization
`to file that motion was denied, the patent
`owner is left with really no recourse other
`than asking the Federal Circuit to intervene.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: So you have not
`filed this petition yet.
` MS. ARNER: No. We have not filed
`the petition for mandamus. We wanted to ask
`the board for this brief stay to see if that
`would be possible procedurally because it is a
`shorter stay than we discussed last week.
` There is another petition for
`mandamus pending before the Federal Circuit
`that was filed by Trading Technologies. That
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 13 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`is related to the issue of whether or not the
`'304 patent is a CBM, where Trading
`Technologies has asked the Federal Circuit to
`vacate the institution decision, but that is a
`separate issue.
` The mandamus petition that we are
`talking about today, that we are planning to
`file, is related to the stay request which we
`just made to the board last week.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And when do you
`expect to file this writ of mandamus?
` MS. ARNER: Our petition for
`mandamus?
` Well, if the board does not want
`to revisit its decision and have us brief the
`stay motion, the full stay motion here, and we
`do have --
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Miss Arner, your
`request in the second e-mail was for stay
`pending decisions in the writ of mandamus; is
`that correct?
` MS. ARNER: That's correct, yes.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 14 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: So you have not
`filed a written mandamus yet.
` MS. ARNER: No, we have not, no.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: When do you plan
`on filing this writ of mandamus?
` MS. ARNER: I would say that it
`would be filed within a week from today.
` And we're asking the board to stay
`the proceedings to allow the patent owner to
`file that request and allow the Federal Circuit
`to consider that request on its expedited
`mandamus docket.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: File it within a
`week. You expect it may be a week and a month
`for the stay --
` MS. ARNER: Based on what -- yes.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: -- before you.
` The parties could stipulate to
`move the due date.
` Have you consulted or asked the
`petitioner whether they would be willing to
`file -- move the due dates for the patent
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 15 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`owner's response?
` MS. ARNER: No, we have not tried
`to move the due dates within the current
`schedule.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Were you
`planning to file a motion to amend?
` MS. ARNER: We are still
`considering all of our options.
` But given that we believe that the
`Federal Circuit is now considering, the only
`legal issue at issue in the CBM, and that will
`be controlling on the parties --
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Miss Arner, your
`request in the e-mail was for a motion to stay
`for the writ of mandamus.
` MS. ARNER: Yes, and the writ of
`mandamus has to do with the stay issue. The
`writ of mandamus to be filed is on the stay
`issue.
` It will be a second petition is
`what we will be filing, asking specifically for
`the Federal Circuit to stay this proceeding
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 16 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`while it determines the patentability of the
`'304 patent in the reshaded co-pending appeal.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right. Do
`you have any more reasons why we should at this
`time stay the case pending a plan to file the
`other written -- the second writ for mandamus?
` MS. ARNER: Yes. So the stay
`factors that would be looked at, for example,
`by the Federal Circuit include the prejudice to
`each party and the public interest, and we
`think that all of those factors weigh in favor
`of this short stay pending the mandamus
`petition.
` We think that the prejudice is
`obvious to the patent owner with the due date
`approaching and the desire of the parties to
`expedite the schedule, the shortening of a
`preliminary response in our related case.
`There's a lot of pressure that's building on
`the patent owner.
` The petitioner would not have
`prejudice because they've already demonstrated
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 17 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`that delay of a long time is not a problem, and
`we're only asking for a very short time here.
` And it would promote the public
`interest, which is one of the factors the
`Federal Circuit looks at when considering
`emergency stays like this. And it seems like
`it would be in the public interest where the
`goals are not just to be quick but also to be
`fair and inexpensive in the statutory
`consideration of efficiency. We think all of
`those factors weigh in favor of this short
`administrative stay which was requested in our
`e-mail.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Okay. Now we'll
`hear from petitioner.
` MR. KESSEL: This is Adam Kessel
`on behalf of TradeStation. I'll start.
` This is the first time we're
`hearing the justification, so this is a little
`bit off-the-cuff, but I would say that this is
`exactly the sort of ancillary procedural
`litigation that the CBM process is supposed to
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 18 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`avoid.
` The -- the board denied TT leave
`to file a motion to stay. And now we have a
`request for leave to file a motion to stay
`pending a mandamus on the denial of the leave
`for filing a motion to stay.
` I think this is the opposite of
`what a CBM is supposed to be. The board may
`know better, but to our knowledge, the Federal
`Circuit has never mandamused the PTAB. So it
`seems exceedingly unlikely to do so here,
`especially on a discretionary procedural issue
`about leave to file a motion to stay.
` So it seems like TT is asking this
`board to stay pending a decision which is
`really exceedingly unlikely.
` The only prejudice that I've heard
`identified is that they're going to have to
`work on their brief. That's not, as I
`understand it, the sort of prejudice that is
`cognizable for these situations. And we
`already discussed in our last conference call
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 19 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`why the pending Federal Circuit appeal is not
`dispositive. It involves different parties on
`a different record and a different standard of
`proof. It's simply not the same issue that is
`before this body. For example, the pending
`Federal Circuit appeal does not have the expert
`testimony that is in the instant petition.
` So we would ask the board to deny
`TT's request for leave. What really seems to
`be going on here, your Honor, is TT is trying
`every trick in the book to try to get its first
`appeal decided before there is action here.
`And so anything that could interject delay in
`this proceeding, they're going to try it, and
`we submit that's not what this process is for,
`and, in fact, it's an abuse of this process.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right.
`Would you be willing to consider with patent
`owner moving the date for the patent owner's
`response? It seems like there's only -- today
`is the 18th? The patent owner's response is
`due on the 21st. That's a month away.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 20 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. KESSEL: So this is the first,
`of course, we're hearing of that. I would
`defer to my colleague, lead counsel, John
`Phillips, if he has any view on that.
` MR. PHILLIPS: I would certainly
`be willing to listen to a proposal, but, again,
`patent owner has a habit of not informing us
`prior to these calls what its position is going
`to be, so we're not in a position to argue to
`the best of the ability of the board making a
`decision but, again, we'd be willing to listen
`to a proposal.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right.
` MS. ARNER: Your Honor, since we
`bear the burden on the motion, I'm going to
`take a minute. We may have a reply since we
`bear the burden on the motion, your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: I'm going to
`take a moment to query my panel, and then I
`will come back.
` (Brief recess.)
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right. My
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 21 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`panel does not have any questions for the
`petitioner. Miss Arner?
` MS. ARNER: Yes?
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Is there
`something else you wanted to say?
` MS. ARNER: I do. Thank you very
`much, and I'll make it very brief.
` The Federal Circuit actually has
`just this month addressed a mandamus petition
`that was filed with regard to a board decision.
`And, in fact, they ordered an administrative
`stay, a short stay while the mandamus briefing
`was going on. That's in the In re Virnetx.
`And so I would point that out to the board as
`far as the allegation that the Federal Circuit
`has never done anything regarding mandamus
`petitions within the PTAB. Sort of following
`that procedure, they ordered an administrative
`stay.
` As far as the different burdens,
`claim construction standards and parties, the
`petition has admitted that the arguments are
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 22 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`the same as were made in the district court.
`They said they're substantially identical. 101
`is a legal issue, so those types of differences
`don't matter.
` Here the district court had the
`CPG petition before it -- or the CPG argument
`before it, and it did not depend on any factual
`determinations or the burden of proof.
` And as far as claim construction
`standards being different in the district court
`and here, that doesn't matter for 101, where
`the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court have
`decided cases of no claim construction at all.
`And here the only disputed claim construction
`terms had to do with the 112 grounds, not 101.
` Patentability -- because it's the
`only issue in both cases, patentability turns
`on just the four corners of the patent. And so
`this expert testimony is really not something
`that's relevant to the question here.
` And the patent owner's intention
`is not to surprise or try and hide its
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 23 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`arguments. And that's why we've requested the
`ability to fully brief the motion as we did
`with the stay motion previously, so that we can
`put forth our arguments, and petitioners have
`time and ability to respond to them. We're not
`trying to win by some tactic. Were trying to
`win on the substance, and that's why we're
`requesting the right to file a motion to
`request the relief that we would like. Thank
`you very much.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: But let me be
`clear. The motion -- so what you're asking for
`now is a stay to stay pending the second
`not-yet-filed writ of mandamus.
` MS. ARNER: That's right. And
`that's what the Federal Circuit did in the
`Virnetx case. After the board declined to give
`a stay pending the mandamus petition, Virnetx
`filed a mandamus petitions and then asked the
`Federal Circuit for a stay, and the Federal
`Circuit granted the stay. They stated -- gave
`it a temporary shorter stay of the CBM to
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 24 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`enable the Federal Circuit time to consider the
`mandamus petition. That's what we're asking
`for on today's call is a stay here while we
`talk to the Federal Circuit in our mandamus
`petition.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you for
`the clarification. I'm going to query my panel
`one more time, see if they have any more
`questions.
` (Brief recess.)
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right.
` Miss Arner, if you could file the
`transcript as soon as it becomes available, we
`will then issue on order on this on the second
`request for a motion to stay. And this call is
`adjourned.
` MS. ARNER: Thank you. We will
`file it.
` MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you.
` MALE VOICE: Thank you.
` MALE VOICE: Thank you.
` (Ending time noted: 2:19 p.m.)
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 25 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`March 17, 2016
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
`
`I, Cynthia J. Conforti, Registered
`Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and
`for the State of Illinois, County of Cook,
`the
`officer before whom the proceedings were taken,
`do hereby certify that the foregoing transcript
`is a true and accurate record of these
`
`that said proceedings were taken
`proceedings;
`in Stenotype note by me on the 17th day of
`March, 2016, commencing at 2 o'clock p.m. and
`ending at 2:22 p.m.
`
`I further certify that present on behalf of
`Party Tradestation Group,
`Inc. were John C.
`Phillips, Esq. and Adam Kessel, Esq. of Fish &
`Richardson, and present on behalf of Party
`Trading Technologies International,
`Inc. were
`Erika Harmon Arner, Esq., Cory C. Bell, Esq.,
`Joshua L. Goldberg, Esq., and Brandon C. Rash,
`Esq., of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Dunner,
`LLP, and present on behalf of IBG LLC and
`Interactive Brokers LLC were Matthew A.
`
`Argenti, Esq., and Michael T. Rosato, Esq., of
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, and Robert E.
`Sokohl, Esq., of Sterne, Kessler Goldstein &
`Fox, and Steve Borsand of Trading Technologies
`International,
`Inc.
`
`I further certify that I am not related to,
`nor associated with any of the parties or their
`attorneys, nor do I have any disqualifying
`interest, personal or financial within.
`
`Dated this 18th
`County, Illinois.
`
`ay of March 2016 at
`
`REPORTER'S SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`202-220-4158
`Page 26 of 32
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`wwwhendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 26 of 32
`
`

`
`
`
`TeleconferenceTeleconference
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016March 17, 2016
`
`1
`
`A
`ability 21:10
`24:2,5
`abuse 20:16
`accurate 26:4
`action 20:12
`Adam 4:4 9:2
`18:16 26:8
`addressed
`22:9
`adjourned
`25:16
`administrati...
`11:18
`administrative
`3:9 18:12
`22:11,18
`admitted
`22:22
`afternoon 8:1
`allegation
`22:15
`allow 12:20,20
`13:6 15:9,10
`Alto 6:10
`ambiguous
`9:14 10:3
`amend 16:6
`ancillary 18:21
`and- 4:20 5:9
`anybody 9:8
`apologize 10:2
`appeal 1:3 2:6
`3:4 10:9,12
`10:15 12:2
`13:3 17:2
`20:1,6,12
`appearing 3:2
`approaching
`11:9 17:16
`appropriate
`9:21
`Argenti 6:6 9:6
`
`9:6 26:12
`argue 21:9
`argument 23:6
`arguments
`22:22 24:1,4
`Arner 4:12 8:6
`8:7 9:11,22
`11:22 13:15
`14:12,18,22
`15:3,6,16
`16:2,7,13,16
`17:7 21:14
`22:2,3,6
`24:15 25:12
`25:17 26:10
`asked 14:3
`15:20 24:19
`asking 9:12
`10:7 13:12
`15:8 16:21
`18:2 19:14
`24:12 25:2
`associated
`26:16
`attorneys
`26:16
`authorization
`9:12,16
`10:22 13:9
`available
`25:13
`Ave 7:6
`Avenue 5:12
`6:14
`avoid 19:1
`B
`B2 1:13
`back 21:20
`Based 15:16
`basis 9:15
`12:9
`bear 21:15,17
`
`behalf 3:4,11
`4:10 6:4
`18:17 26:7,9
`26:11
`believe 16:9
`Bell 5:4 8:10
`26:10
`best 21:10
`better 19:9
`bit 9:14 18:20
`board 1:3 2:6
`3:5 12:20
`13:3,6,17
`14:9,14 15:8
`19:2,8,15
`20:8 21:10
`22:10,14
`24:17
`board's 11:13
`body 20:5
`book 20:11
`Borsand 7:14
`8:14,14
`26:14
`Boston 4:6 5:6
`Brandon 5:11
`8:10 26:10
`brandon.ras...
`5:16
`brief 13:6,17
`14:15 19:19
`21:21 22:7
`24:2 25:10
`briefing 12:10
`12:15,15,17
`13:8 22:12
`Brokers 6:4
`26:12
`building 17:19
`burden 21:15
`21:17 23:8
`burdens 22:20
`
`C
`C 2:6 3:1,1,6
`3:13 4:1,1
`5:1,1,4,11
`6:1,1 7:1,1
`26:8,10,10
`California 3:16
`6:10
`call 10:2 13:4
`19:22 25:3
`25:15
`calls 21:8
`Camino 3:15
`case 1:12 9:21
`17:5,18
`24:17
`cases 12:9
`23:13,17
`catch 8:20
`CBM 10:13,16
`11:1 14:2
`16:11 18:22
`19:8 24:22
`CBM2015-00...
`8:4
`CBM2015-00...
`1:12
`certainly 21:5
`CERTIFICATE
`26:1
`certify 26:4,7
`26:15
`Circuit 10:7,12
`10:15 11:1,5
`12:6,8 13:1
`13:12,21
`14:3 15:10
`16:10,22
`17:9 18:5
`19:10 20:1,6
`22:8,15
`23:12 24:16
`24:20,21
`
`25:1,4
`Circuit's 10:18
`claim 22:21
`23:9,13,14
`clarification
`25:7
`clarify 9:17
`10:4
`clear 13:5
`24:12
`co-pending
`10:8,14 17:2
`cognizable
`19:21
`colleague 21:3
`come 21:20
`commencing
`26:6
`conference
`19:22
`Conforti 2:9
`26:2
`consider
`15:11 20:18
`25:1
`consideration
`11:17 18:10
`considered
`13:3
`considering
`10:9 11:6
`16:8,10 18:5
`considers
`11:2
`construction
`22:21 23:9
`23:13,14
`consulted
`15:20
`Cont'd 4:2 5:2
`6:2 7:2
`controlling
`10:13 16:12
`
`
`
`202-220-4158202-220-4158
`
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`www.hendersonlegalservices.comwww.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 27 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`2
`
`convening
`10:2
`Cook 26:3,18
`Corey 8:10
`corners 23:18
`Corporation
`6:8
`correct 14:21
`14:22
`Cory 5:4 26:10
`cory.bell@fi...
`5:8
`counsel 8:7
`21:3
`County 26:3
`26:18
`course 21:2
`court 10:9
`12:10,13
`23:1,5,10,12
`CPG 23:6,6
`CRR 2:9
`CSR 2:9
`current 16:3
`Cynthia 2:8
`26:2
`
`D
`date 11:9
`15:19 17:15
`20:19
`Dated 26:18
`dates 15:22
`16:3
`day 11:8 26:5
`26:18
`DC 5:13 7:8
`decide 12:14
`13:7
`decided 20:12
`23:13
`deciding 12:11
`decision 10:8
`
`10:11,18
`13:2 14:4,15
`19:15 21:11
`22:10
`decisions
`14:20
`decisis 10:20
`declined 24:17
`defer 21:3
`delay 18:1
`20:13
`demonstrated
`17:22
`denial 19:5
`denied 13:10
`19:2
`deny 20:8
`depend 23:7
`depends 12:5
`desire 17:16
`determinati...
`23:8
`determines
`13:1 17:1
`Diego 3:16
`differences
`23:3
`different 20:2
`20:3,3 22:20
`23:10
`direction 2:11
`discretionary
`19:12
`discussed
`13:19 19:22
`dispositive
`10:19 20:2
`disputed
`23:14
`disqualifying
`26:16
`district 23:1,5
`23:10
`
`docket 12:6,9
`15:12
`Drive 4:5,16
`due 11:9 15:19
`15:22 16:3
`17:15 20:22
`Dunner 4:14
`26:11
`E
`E 3:1,1,1 4:1,1
`4:1 5:1,1,1
`6:1,1,1 7:1,1
`7:1,4 26:13
`e-mail 9:12,13
`10:3 14:19
`16:14 18:13
`efficiency
`18:10
`efficient 11:17
`either 10:12,20
`12:14
`El 3:15
`emergency
`18:6
`enable 25:1
`Erika 4:12 8:7
`26:10
`erika.arner...
`4:19
`especially
`19:12
`Esq 3:6,7,8,13
`4:4,12 5:4,10
`5:11 6:6,13
`7:4 26:8,8,10
`26:10,10,11
`26:12,12,13
`EST 2:3
`exactly 18:21
`example 17:8
`20:5
`exceedingly
`
`19:11,16
`expect 14:11
`15:14
`expedite 17:17
`expedited 12:8
`12:9 15:11
`expert 20:6
`23:19
`F
`F 3:1 4:1 5:1
`6:1 7:1
`fact 20:16
`22:11
`factors 17:8
`17:11 18:4
`18:11
`factual 23:7
`fair 18:9
`far 22:15,20
`23:9
`Farabow 4:13
`26:11
`favor 17:11
`18:11
`Federal 10:7
`10:12,15,17
`11:1,5 12:6,8
`13:1,12,21
`14:3 15:10
`16:10,22
`17:9 18:5
`19:9 20:1,6
`22:8,15
`23:12 24:16
`24:20,20
`25:1,4
`Fifth 6:14
`file 9:13 10:6
`10:22 11:3
`11:12 13:10
`14:8,11
`15:10,13,22
`
`16:6 17:5
`19:3,4,13
`24:8 25:12
`25:18
`filed 13:14,15
`13:22 15:2,7
`16:18 22:10
`24:19
`filing 12:13
`15:5 16:21
`19:6
`financial 26:17
`Finnegan 4:13
`8:9,11 26:11
`first 11:12
`18:18 20:11
`21:1
`Fish 3:14 26:8
`following
`22:17
`foregoing 26:4
`forth 24:4
`four 23:18
`Fox 7:5 26:14
`Freedom 4:15
`4:16
`full 13:7 14:16
`fully 24:2
`further 26:7,15
`G
`Garrett 4:13
`give 24:17
`given 11:11
`13:9 16:9
`goal 11:13
`goals 18:8
`going 19:18
`20:10,14
`21:8,15,18
`22:13 25:7
`Goldberg 5:10
`8:10 26:10
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 28 of 32
`
`

`
`Teleconference
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`March 17, 2016
`3
`
`Goldstein 7:5
`26:13
`Good 8:1
`Goodrich 6:7
`26:13
`granted 24:21
`gravamen
`10:16
`grounds 23:15
`Group 1:5 3:11
`26:8
`
`H
`habit 21:7
`happy 10:1
`harm 11:10
`Harmon 4:12
`26:10
`hear 18:15
`heard 19:17
`hearing 18:19
`21:2
`help 10:4
`Henderson
`4:13 26:11
`Hi 8:6
`hide 23:22
`Honor 8:6
`20:10 21:14
`21:17
`hope 10:3
`I
`IBG 6:4 8:18
`8:21 9:5,7
`26:11
`identical 23:2
`identified
`19:18
`Illinois 2:10
`26:3,18
`include 17:9
`inexpensive
`11:15 18:9
`
`informing 21:7
`instant 20:7
`institute 10:16
`institution
`14:4
`intention
`23:21
`Interactive 6:4
`26:12
`interest 17:10
`18:4,7 26:17
`interject 20:13
`International
`1:9 4:11 7:15
`26:9,14
`intervene
`13:12
`involves 20:2
`issue 10:10,14
`10:18 14:1,5
`16:11,11,17
`16:19 19:12
`20:4 23:3,17
`25:14
`issuing 12:10
`J
`J 2:8 26:2
`JEREMY 3:7
`John 3:13 8:22
`21:3 26:8
`joined 8:9,9
`Josh 8:10
`Joshua 5:10
`26:10
`joshua.gold...
`5:15
`Judge 2:6 8:1
`8:2,3,3,16,19
`9:8,11 10:1
`11:20 13:13
`14:10,18
`15:1,4,13,17
`
`16:5,13 17:3
`18:14 20:17
`21:13,18,22
`22:4 24:11
`25:6,11
`Judges 3:9
`justification
`18:19
`K
`Kessel 4:4 9:2
`9:2 18:16,16
`21:1 26:8
`kessel@fr.c...
`4:8
`Kess