`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`Patent No. 6,766,304
`
`___________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`1 Case CBM2016-00035 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC, TradeStation Group, Inc., TradeStation
`
`Securities, Inc., TradeStation Technologies, Inc., and IBFX, Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Petitioners”) object to the admissibility of the following evidence Trading
`
`Technologies International, Inc. (“TT” or “Patent Owner”) filed and served on
`
`June 16, 2016. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64. Petitioners ask the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board to deny the admission and consideration of the following documents on the
`
`following basis:
`
`
`
`1. TT Exhibit 2142 – Trading Techs. Int’l v. BGC Partners, Inc., Case
`No. 10-C-715 (N.D. Ill.), Transcript of Proceedings (May 12, 2016)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`2. TT Exhibit 2143 – TS0028765
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`3. TT Exhibit 2144 – TS0107054
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`4. TT Exhibit 2145 – TS0024612
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`5. TT Exhibit 2146 – TS1261405
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`
`6. TT Exhibit 2147 – TS1268720
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`7. TT Exhibit 2148 – TS1533977
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`8. TT Exhibit 2149 – TS152667
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`9. TT Exhibit 2150 – Video Deposition Transcript of John
`Bartleman, dated June 8, 2016 in Trading Technologies International,
`Inc. v. BGC Parnters, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-715 (Consolidated) (N.D.
`Ill.).
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`10. TT Exhibit 2151 – Draft Video Deposition Transcript of John
`Bartleman, dated June 9, 2016 in Trading Technologies International,
`Inc. v. BGC Parnters, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-715 (Consolidated) (N.D.
`Ill.).
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`11. TT Exhibit 2152 – Listing of Additional Discovery Sought:
`Produced Documents and Transcripts
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`12. TT Exhibit 2153 – Listing of Additional Discovery Sought:
`Documents Withheld in District Court
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`13. TT Exhibit 2154 – Video Deposition Transcript of Milan Galik,
`dated June 13, 2016 in Trading Technologies International, Inc. v.
`BGC Parnters, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-715 (Consolidated) (N.D. Ill.).
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`14. TT Exhibit 2155 – Relevance of Additional Discovery Sought
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`15. TT Exhibit 2156 – IBG_00026004
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`16. TT Exhibit 2157 – IBG_00040515
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`17. TT Exhibit 2158 – IBG_00014726
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`These objections are made within five business days from the June 16, 2016
`
`filing and service of TT’s exhibits.
`
`
`
`Dated: June 22, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` By: /John C. Phillips/
`
`John C. Phillips, Reg. No. 35,322
`
`Fish & Richardson, P.C.
`
`
`
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0005CP1
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.205(b), the undersigned certifies
`
`that on June 22, 2016, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Objections to
`
`Evidence was provided via email to the Patent Owner by serving the
`
`correspondence address of record as follows:
`
`Erika H. Arner, Joshua L. Goldberg, Kevin D. Rodkey and Rachel L. Emsley
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`Email: erika.arner@finnegan.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`kevin.rodkey@finnegan.com
`rachel.emsley@finnegan.com
`
`
`Steven F. Borsand
`Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Email: tt-patent-cbm@tradingtechnologies.com
`
`
`Michael D. Gannon and Leif R. Sigmond, Jr.
`McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
`Email: gannon@mbhb.com
`sigmond@mbhb.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Diana Bradley/
`
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
