`
` Filed: June 15, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.,
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC., IBG LLC, and
`INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC.
`
`Petitioner
`v.
`
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`Case CBM2015-001611
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`_________________
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Additional Discovery
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case CBM2016-00035 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
` U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner (“TT”) submits this motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2),1 as
`
`
`
`authorized by the Board. Ex. 2140. TT seeks discovery of the documents listed in
`
`Exhibit 21522, and the databases listed in Exhibit 2153.3
`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners refuse to produce highly relevant evidence in their possession
`
`and already produced to TT in the litigation, and which clearly contradicts
`
`positions being taken before the Board. The evidence sought is the most relevant
`
`with respect to certain issues, speaking directly to the legal and factual issues of
`
`these proceedings. Petitioners claim that the information is irrelevant, and object to
`
`TT’s use of the documents based on the district court protective order.
`
`The district court judge in the co-pending litigation ordered limited
`
`additional discovery notwithstanding the stay explaining: “I believe the discovery
`
`1 TT notes that it submits identical motions in CBM2015-000161, -172, -179, -181,
`
`and -182. Although certain of these proceedings do not include instituted prior art
`
`grounds, the evidence discussed herein is equally applicable to all proceedings,
`
`given the Board’s embedding of obviousness-type analysis within CBM and/or
`
`§ 101 analysis.
`
`2 The relevance of each document is listed in Exhibit 2155.
`
`3 TT maintains that this is Routine discovery as it is facially contrary to Petitioners’
`
`positions.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
` U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`materials will be beneficial, both when the case resumes and also before the
`
`PTAB.” Ex. 2142 (emphasis added). The trial judge thus took the extraordinary
`
`step of re-opening discovery in a stayed matter to bring forward highly relevant
`
`evidence for the benefit of the Board. Id. This evidence is crucial to the Boards’
`
`meaningful consideration of patentability under §§ 101 and 103, as well as CBM
`
`arguments, and is at a minimum, appropriate for production onto this record as
`
`Additional Discovery. Without access to this discovery that is of no burden for
`
`Petitioners to provide and which is most pertinent for discrediting Petitioners’
`
`assertions, TT will be materially prejudiced. The production ordered by the district
`
`court, despite the stay and over objections, was scheduled to be completed June 10,
`
`with depositions on June 8, 9, and 13. Noting the trial court’s schedule, the Board
`
`moved dates for TT’s responses to June 17. See CBM2016-00182, Paper 38, at 6-7
`
`But Petitioners have refused production here.
`
`
`
`The documents relate to for example, non-obviousness, including secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness, the state-of-mind of a skilled artisan at the time
`
`of the invention through the development of Matrix (see, e.g., Ex. 2144
`
`
`
`
`
`, the development history of the claimed
`
`features at TS (including evidence tending to show copying by TradeStation) and
`
`the importance of the claimed features to IB (see, e.g., Ex. 2156
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
` U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`
`. The parties have agreed to the default protective
`
`order for only a handful of the documents for the purposes of this Motion, and so
`
`TT has only summarized each documents relevance in Ex. 2155.
`
`Such evidence supports the inventive concept analysis under § 101, as well
`
`as CBM analysis. Other evidence shows that TS and IB view their products as
`
`implementing the claimed features as “technological” and as an “order entry tool”,
`
`contradicting Petitioners § 101 and CBM arguments. (e.g., Ex. 2143
`
`; Ex. 2145
`
`; Ex. 2157
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Further, IB’s head of software development has stated that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 2158. This is contrary to the position taken by the Petitioner’s
`
`expert, Mr. Román, who opined that electronic trading screens are purely aesthetic.
`
`The requested documents are easily identifiable and accessible: (1) 95
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
` U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`documents, identified by Bates number or other identifier understandable by
`
`litigation counsel (Ex. 2152); (2) transcripts of TS and IB depositions held on
`
`June 8, 9, and 13, 2016, as ordered by the district court (id); and (3) documents
`
`improperly withheld by Petitioners because they allegedly include identifying
`
`information of customers (Ex. 2153).
`
`II. LEGAL FOUNDATION
`Secondary considerations, when present, must be considered in determining
`
`
`obviousness. Nike Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “In
`
`fact, we have expressly stated that when secondary considerations are present . . . it
`
`is error not to consider them.” Id. (quoting omitted) (remanding to PTAB for
`
`consideration of objective indicia). When “considerable record evidence on
`
`objective indicia, including unexpected results, expert skepticism, copying,
`
`commercial success, praise by others (even from the accused infringer []), failure
`
`by others, and long-felt need” is available, as here, it should be addressed. Mintz v.
`
`Dietz & Watson Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A tribunal’s obligation
`
`under Graham’s fourth factor is not waived “by some procedural requirement that
`
`ducks consideration of evidence presented . . . .” Id. at 1378.
`
`
`
`A patent is a significant property right to which due process protections
`
`apply, and CBMR provides a means by which petitioners seek to invalidate that
`
`grant. U.S. Const. amend. V.; 35 U.S.C. § 261; Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
` U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 730 (2002) (“The [patent] monopoly is a
`
`property right.”). Patent owners must, therefore, be “given a meaningful
`
`opportunity to present their case.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 349 (1976).
`
`Because consideration of objective indicia “can be the most probative evidence of
`
`non-obviousness in the record, and enable the court to avert the trap of hind-sight,”
`
`Crocs, Inc. v. ITC, 598 F.3d 1294, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Nike, Inc., 812 F.3d at
`
`1339, the risk of error in deciding patentability would be severe if such evidence
`
`was not discoverable here. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335.
`
`Additional discovery may be ordered if the party moving for the discovery
`
`shows good cause in a CBM proceeding. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5); § 326(a)(5);
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2); § 42.224(a). The Board has allowed additional discovery
`
`on similar facts. See Chevron N. America v. Milwaukee Electric Tool, IPR2015-
`
`00595, Paper 31 (Oct. 30, 2015) (granting additional discovery of documents
`
`litigation counsel deemed relevant to secondary considerations under the higher
`
`“interests of justice” standard for IPRs).
`
`III. REQUESTED DOCUMENTS ARE APPROPRIATE AS
`ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
`“[D]iscovery before the Board is focused on what the parties reasonably
`
`need to respond to the grounds raised by an opponent.” 77 77 Fed. Reg. 157,
`
`48,761, 48,761 (emphasis added). As the Federal Circuit reaffirmed, e.g., Nike Inc.,
`
`812 F.3d at 1339, secondary considerations evidence is “reasonably need[ed]” to
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
` U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`respond to the grounds raised in this matter—obviousness under § 103. The same
`
`evidence is relevant to whether an inventive concept exists in the claimed
`
`invention under § 101. And below, TT shows “good cause” as to why the
`
`discovery sought should be produced as Additional Discovery.
`
`TT’s litigation counsel has now identified specific documents and obtained
`
`witness testimony validating predictions of relevance. This discovery would have
`
`been used before the trial court to support TT’s secondary considerations positions
`
`and to refute allegations under § 101. As the Illinois case is stayed pending the
`
`outcome of these CBMs, however, this is the only forum in which TT can present
`
`this highly relevant evidence. Failure to obtain this discovery here would be highly
`
`prejudicial to TT, denying the full and fair opportunity to defend its patents before
`
`the Board. Petitioners should not be permitted to withhold production.
`
`A. Bloomberg Factors
`In Bloomberg, the Board applied various factors as guideposts to help
`
`determine if the Additional Discovery request is for “good cause” in a CBM
`
`proceeding. Bloomberg Inc. v. Markets-Alert Pty Ltd., No. CBM2013-00005
`
`(JYC), (PTAB May 29, 2013) (decision wherein the board modified the Garmin
`
`factors for CBM’s lower “good cause” standard); see also Garmin Int’l, Inc. v.
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, Case No. IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 at 6–7 (PTAB,
`
`Mar. 5, 2013) (applying higher “interests of justice” standard). Here, each
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
` U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bloomberg factor favors granting the request for Additional Discovery:
`
`1.
`
`Useful Material Has Already Been Discovered and Is More
`than Possibility or Mere Allegation
`
`TT represents, based on input from its litigation counsel, that the requested
`
`production of 95 documents, three deposition transcripts, and four databases
`
`contains information that is highly relevant to, and inconsistent with, Petitioners’
`
`arguments related to the issue of secondary considerations, § 101, and CBM.
`
`In the corresponding litigation, Petitioners produced upwards of 90,000
`
`documents, which counsel has culled to only the most “useful.” Under Garmin,
`
`“‘useful’ means favorable in substantive value to a contention of the party moving
`
`for discovery.” Garmin, Paper 26 at 7-8 (emphasis added). Secondary
`
`considerations is of great “substantive value” to a nonobviousness analysis, and is
`
`relevant to both the proposed obviousness grounds and the assertions that the
`
`claimed technology was obvious under the CBM analysis. See, e.g., Nike Inc., 812
`
`F.3d at 1339; Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281,
`
`306 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (objective indicia “may be the most pertinent, probative, and
`
`revealing evidence available to the decision maker in reaching a conclusion on the
`
`obviousness/nonobviousness issue”).
`
`As noted above, these documents will support non-obviousness, including
`
`secondary considerations such as copying (see infra), commercial success (see Ex.
`
`2146
`
`
`
`; Ex. 2147
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`; Ex. 2148
`
`
`
`
`
` and industry praise (Ex. 2144
`
`); Ex. 2143
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
` U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In Chevron, on nearly identical facts, the Board held that:
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has made a narrow request for documents
`it asserts will have a bearing on the issue of secondary
`considerations. In this case, Patent Owner’s assertion is
`not based on mere speculation, but on direct input from
`its litigation counsel. Although Patent Owner has not
`identified at this time a definite nexus between the
`desired documents and the claims at issue, it has
`provided sufficient reasoning tending to show that the
`documents will have substantive value with respect to the
`issue of secondary considerations.
`
`Chevron Op. at 3 (applying higher “interests of justice standard”).
`
`
`
`Under these similar circumstances, there is no need at this stage to
`
`demonstrate nexus for an order granting additional discovery. Id. Here, TT has
`
`further identified such a nexus by pointing to the relevant features and tying them
`
`to the claimed invention (e.g., price ladder with single-action order entry).
`
`Accordingly, the relevance of the documents in this case far exceeds the
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`requirement of Bloomberg’s first factor.
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
` U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`The deposition transcripts likewise contain information that is relevant to,
`
`and inconsistent with, Petitioner’s arguments. For example, Mr. Bartleman, TS’s
`
`President and 30(b)(6) deponent, admitted that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 2151, 212:3-219:7, see Ex. 2144, 57). Mr. Bartleman further admitted that
`
`(Ex. 2151, 221:24-222:12). Mr. Bartleman further admitted that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (Ex. 2151, 330:7-22). And, contrary to Petitioner’s experts position that
`
`the claims are purely aesthetic, IB’s 30(b)(6) witness and head of software
`
`development, Mr. Galik, stated
`
`Ex. 2154, 404:12-14).
`
`
`
`
`
`Regarding the documents on Ex. 2153, although these items have not yet
`
`been produced in the litigation, the existence of these documents (and their
`
`relevance) is more than a mere possibility or allegation. (See Ex. 2150, 97:18-
`
`98:13 (CRM Database); id., 136:10-17, 137:4-138:6; Ex. 2151, 40:14-42:7 (Beta
`
`Forum); Ex. 2150, 43:24-45:19, 243:7-23 (Jira/TFS)), (Ex. 2154, 410:4-411:22,
`
`414:11-416:14, 419:20-421:6 (“Jeet” Database).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
` U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Does Not Seek Petitioners’ Litigation
`Positions
`
`TT does not seek Petitioners’ litigation positions, nor will any positions be
`
`revealed at least because all of the documents listed in Ex. 2152 have already been
`
`produced to TT’s litigation counsel. No new information will be conveyed. See
`
`Bloomberg, at 5; Chevron Op. at 3 (“we are persuaded that Patent Owner does not
`
`seek Petitioner’s litigation positions because the documents sought already have
`
`been produced to Patent Owner’s litigation counsel”). The evidence in Ex. 2153
`
`likewise does not seek litigation positions, but rather includes information
`
`representing customer feedback, requests, and praise for claimed features (Ex.
`
`2150, 97:18-98:13(CRM Database), see also Ex. 2149 (exemplary data from CRM
`
`Database)), user reaction to early usage of the Matrix window (Ex. 2150, 136:10-
`
`17, 137:4-138:6; Ex. 2151 40:14-42:7 (Beta Forum)), and records of bugs/revisions
`
`made to TradeStation’s software as a result of customer feedback (Ex. 2150,
`
`43:24-45:19, 243:7-23 (Jira/TFS)). The information sought is factual.
`
`Patent Owner Cannot Generate Equivalent Information
`3.
`The Documents relate to Petitioners’ internal analysis and perceptions. See
`
`Bloomberg, at 5 (holding that “good cause standard” bars requests for information
`
`that can be reasonably generated without a discovery request). This information
`
`can only be obtained from TS and IB, the sole parties in control of such
`
`documents. TT cannot independently generate this information.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
` U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`The Request Has Easily Understandable Instructions
`
`4.
`CBM additional discovery requests must include easily understandable
`
`instructions. Id. As explained, TT requests are specifically identified materials
`
`from the corresponding litigation production, and the transcripts of specific
`
`deposition testimony. See Chevron Op. at 4 (finding request for specifically
`
`identified documents, which have been previously produced in the related district
`
`court litigation, is focused and easily understandable). The third category, the
`
`documents withheld, were subject to a Motion to Compel, subject to requests for
`
`the specific information withheld during the depositions, and thus readily
`
`identifiable by TS and IB, as they have already considered them. The witnesses
`
`testified as to the existence of relevant information within these databases. (See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 2151, 40:14-42:7). TS thus can easily understand the documents TT seeks.
`
`The Request Is Not Overly Burdensome to Answer
`
`5.
`With respect to the documents in Ex. 2152, Petitioners can simply allow
`
`TT’s litigation counsel to provide this information to its CBM counsel. Petitioners
`
`need not follow any instructions or conduct a search for responsive information.
`
`Accordingly, there are zero financial costs, human resources, or time constraints
`
`associated with TT’s request for these documents and transcripts. As in Chevron,
`
`the request for previously-produced and identified documents is not overly
`
`burdensome. The documents in list are in TT’s litigation counsel’s possession—
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
` U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`they can be easily reproduced here. The documents in Ex. 2153 has been collected
`
`and reviewed by TS and/or IB in the district court; or were confirmed to exist by
`
`the deponents, and either require only a password for TT to access a database or
`
`require TS and/or IB to extract data from a database. As such, the burden for TS to
`
`produce the documents in the PTAB is minimal.
`
`Additional Factors Favor Patent Owner’s Request
`
`6.
`Petitioners argue that the requested discovery would risk disclosure of
`
`confidential information. Ex. 2140, 23 But, “[t]he fact that the information may be
`
`confidential, . . . does not shield it from discovery.” Chevron Op. at 4. Instead, “if
`
`any confidential material is made of record in these proceedings, the relevant party
`
`may file a motion to seal that material along with a proposed protective order
`
`pursuant to § 42.54.” Id.
`
`IV. ADJUSTING SCHEDULE
`The Board previously extended the deadline for the TT Responses in
`
`CBM2016-00179, -181 and -182 to accommodate potential production, but due
`
`Petitioners unwillingness to produce documents here, TT has had to divert
`
`resources into several meet-and-confer calls, the Board call, an emergency motion
`
`in the district court, and to prepare this paper during TT’s Response period, and
`
`accordingly, TT seeks an extension to the time for its Responses.
`
`Dated: June 15, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Rachel L. Emsley/ (Reg. No. 63,558)
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
` U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`
`
`Owner’s Motion for Additional Discovery was served on June 15, 2016, via
`
`email directed to counsel of record for the Petitioner at the following:
`
`
`John C. Phillips
`phillips@fr.com
`
`Kevin Su
`CBM41919-0005CP1@fr.com
`
`Michael T. Rosato
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`
`Matthew A. Argenti
`margenti@wsgr.com
`
`Robert E. Sokohl
`rsokohl@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 15, 2016
`
`
`
`/Valencia Daniel/
`Valencia Daniel
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett
`& Dunner, LLP