Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`————————————————————————————————
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., |
` Petitioner, | Case CBM2015-00161
` v. | Patent 6,766,304
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES |
`INTERNATIONAL, INC., |
` Patent Owner. |
`————————————————————————————————
` Thursday, September 10, 2015
` 12:59 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.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2010
`TradeStation v. Trading Technologies
`CBM2015-00161
`
`Page 1 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`2
`
` 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.,
` PHILLIP J. HOFFMANN, ESQ.,
` SALLY MEDLEY, ESQ.,
` Administrative Patent Judges
`
`On behalf of Petitioner TradeStation Group,
`Inc:
` JOHN C. PHILLIPS, ESQ.
` Fish & Richardson
` 12390 El Camino Real
` San Diego, California 92130
` 858.678.5070
` phillips@fr.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 2 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`3
`
`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 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-
` CORY C. BELL, ESQ.
` RACHEL L. EMSLEY, ESQ.
` Two Seaport Lane
` Boston, MA 02210-2001
` 617.646.1600
` cory.bell@finnegan.com
` rachel.emsley@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 3 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`4
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S O F C O U N S E L
` (Cont'd)
`
` KEVIN D. RODKEY, ESQ.
` 3500 SunTrust Plaza
` 303 Peachtree Street, NE
` Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3263
` 404.653.6400
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` Adam Kessel, Esq., Fish & Richardson
`
`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 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`5
`
`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 Hoffmann.
` This is a conference call for
`CBM2015-00161.
` Is there counsel on the line for
`Patent Owner?
` MR. RODKEY: Yes, your Honor.
`Counsel for Patent Owner is here. This is
`Kevin Rodkey. With me is Erika Arner, Cory
`Bell and Rachel Emsley.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Is there counsel
`for Petitioner?
` MR. KESSEL: There is. I think
`our lead counsel may be muted. This is Adam
`Kessel for Tradestation. John?
` John Phillips is on the line, I
`believe.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Mr. Phillips,
`are you on the line?
` MR. KESSEL: I wonder if he's got
`a different dial-in. We spoke just a few
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 5 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`minutes ago, and he was dialing in and --
` MR. PHILLIPS: Sorry. John
`Phillips for Petitioner is here.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Great. Is
`anybody else on the line?
` THE REPORTER: The court reporter
`is here on the line, Cynthia Conforti.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: I'm sorry.
`Could you say that again?
` THE REPORTER: This is the court
`reporter.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you. And
`did Patent Owner or Petitioner arrange for the
`court reporter?
` MR. RODKEY: Patent Owner arranged
`for the court reporter.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right.
`Patent Owner, as you requested the call
`regarding an additional discovery issue, we'll
`hear from you first.
` MR. RODKEY: Thank you, your
`Honor.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 6 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Patent Owner is requesting this
`call because we are seeking authorization to
`file a motion to determine whether all their
`parties in interest have been named in this
`petition.
` As you're well aware, CQG
`previously filed petitions on the same patent,
`but the Board denied those petitions because
`CQG had previously filed a declaratory judgment
`action.
` The Petitioner in this case and
`CQG have admitted to the District Court in the
`Northern District of Illinois that they are
`coordinating with the filing of petitions and
`dividing up petitions, and we believe that that
`coordination and the coordination of Petitioner
`and CQG makes CQG a real party in interest.
` So we are seeking authorization to
`file a motion for additional discovery to
`obtain the communications between CQG and the
`Petitioner, which we understand will show that
`CQG is the real party in interest in this case.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 7 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` And we understand that this is
`decided under the Bloomberg factors, and we
`believe that those Bloomberg factors are met
`here. There's more than a possibility or
`allegation.
` As I said, the Petitioner's
`already admitted that they and CQG are
`coordinating the filing of these petitions to
`the District Court. And the petition that was
`filed by Petitioner is essentially a
`substantive clone of CQG's petition that was
`denied, which is admitted in the petition at
`page 4.
` The Petitioner also just used
`CQG's expert report, didn't make any changes to
`that, which means that CQG has basically funded
`the expert and preparation of this petition,
`which is contrary to Petitioner's statement
`about real party in interest.
` And we think our discovery
`requests are fairly narrow. Like I said, we're
`looking for the communications between
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 8 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Petitioner and CQG. We're not seeking their
`litigation petition. And this creates good
`cause for us to seek this additional discovery
`so that we can set forth our arguments in our
`preliminary response.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Can you tell me
`a little bit more about the admissions
`vis-à-vis the court about the coordination?
`How did that come about?
` MR. RODKEY: Yes, your Honor.
`That came up in two briefs that were filed
`jointly by CQG and by TradeStation at the
`District Court.
` They have already been filed in
`this proceeding. They're Exhibits 2002 and
`2003 filed by Patent Owner. And the statements
`that are in them are in Exhibit 2002.
` Both CQG and the Petitioner signed
`on to the statement in the brief that says:
` "Given recent developments, the
`Defendants, CQG and the Petitioner,
`respectfully request a short period of time to
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 9 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`coordinate on the PTAB action."
` The PTAB actions are the filings
`which have begun taking place including this
`proceeding here. So in that they're admitting
`that all the defendants are coordinating to
`prepare this petition.
` Then in Exhibit 2003 at page 8,
`they say:
` "For CQG's part it is preparing to
`file ECMR Petitions on the '411, '374, '768 and
`the '724 patents in the next several weeks."
` So they're also admitting to how
`they divided up the petition, and CQG is taking
`as its part in this petition of patents at
`least these four patents that are mentioned in
`Exhibit 2003.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Okay. One more
`question.
` Do you have any court cases
`which -- do you know of any case of ours that
`has discussed whether the parties that are
`coordinating are real parties in interest?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 10 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. RODKEY: Yes, your Honor. So
`one of those cases is the RPX v. Virnetx case.
`There's several of them actually. They're
`IPRs 2014, 172 to 177, and in those cases Apple
`basically suggested that the petitioner RPX
`file petitions on patents that Apple wanted to
`have under IPR and under post grant review.
` What the Board decided in those
`decisions was that by merely suggesting that
`RPX file on certain petitions Apple became the
`real party in interest.
` And we believe that's what's
`happening here is CQG knows that it's barred
`because the Board has already denied CQG's
`positions under 325. And, therefore, there's a
`suggestion that the current Petitioner should
`file on the '304 patent which it's already
`done. That suggestion makes CQG a real party
`in interest.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you.
` Petitioner, we'll hear from you
`next.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 11 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. PHILLIPS: Okay. Thank you.
`Start there with the Vir- -- how do you
`pronounce it, Virnet -- Virnex -- Virnetx?
` That was completely different.
`That was Apple telling the Petitioner to file
`the petition. And they didn't, so that's
`completely different here.
` In this case it's simply
`coordinated efforts between now three,
`originally four, defendants. There's 16
`patents at issue here, so -- that are being
`asserted by Patent Owner, so understandably
`there's going to be a joint defense group.
` And the relevant cases have all
`held that simply because you have a joint
`defense group or coordinating efforts, that
`does not create the privities or real parties
`in interest.
` There's also no question that in
`at least one case that CQG and the Petitioner
`in this case have cooperated. We filed for
`co-petitioners on it, on a -- the petition for
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 12 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`the -- CBM petition for the '056 patent. We
`can see that. We don't deny it.
` So to the extent that the Patent
`Owner's seeking discovery on cooperative
`efforts on a petition, it's public record, and
`they don't need discovery of that fact. It's
`publicly available.
` In terms of having the same
`petition in a declaration filed is evidence of
`RPI. That exact argument was raised and
`rejected by the Court in the JPMorgan case
`that's directly on point.
` And the argument that they're not
`seeking litigation positions is specious.
`They're necessarily seeking litigation
`positions. The discovery requests that they
`sent us, which they did not provide to the
`Board, I notice, are asking for all
`communications between us and CQG on any and
`all petitions, any post-grant proceedings filed
`or anticipated on any PT patent all -- all in
`agreement on litigation filings as well,
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 13 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`regardless of whether they're -- and they're
`all either work product or attorney-client
`privilege. That's part of the common interest
`agreement between the parties.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: I'm sorry. Were
`you reading the request to me?
` MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I can.
`They're pretty -- they're somewhat lengthy.
`Would you like me to read them? They are not
`that lengthy.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Not if it's
`lengthy. Maybe give me the flavor of it.
` MR. PHILLIPS: I'm sorry. You're
`breaking up.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Yes. Can you
`hear me?
` MR. PHILLIPS: You're breaking up
`a little bit.
` So there's basically two of them.
` So: "All communications
`agreements between TradeStation and CQG
`relating to the filing or preparation of any
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 14 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`post grant proceedings (filed or anticipated)
`of any PT patent or other documents referencing
`such communications and agreements between
`TradeStation and CQG." That's the first one.
` And: "All court documents,
`including briefs and hearing transcripts,
`discussing CQG or TradeStation in any
`post-grant proceeding filed or anticipated of
`any PT patent."
` Those are necessarily broader than
`just this proceeding, the 304 proceeding, and
`are looking for things that aren't public.
`They're communications between the joint
`defense group that are attorney-client
`privilege or work product effective.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Was the second
`one limited to court filings instead of being
`filed in court already?
` MR. PHILLIPS: I can't tell, not
`by its terms. Including briefs and hearing
`transcripts. It says "filed or anticipated."
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 15 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Okay. I'm sorry. I interrupted
`you with a question. Please go on.
` MR. PHILLIPS: I think I've
`responded to all the points. Hold on one sec,
`please. Checking my notes.
` So, in short, we are aware of -- I
`guess a couple other points.
` We're -- as set forth in our brief
`starting at page 4, we explained all the
`reasons that there's no RPI or privity here,
`and we're fully aware of the fact that there
`could have been estoppel if we had coordinated
`or cooperated or accepted any input or funding
`from CQG, and we took steps not to do that. We
`would have been idiots to do so.
` The input for this -- in this
`proceeding, which is the relevant inquiry, was
`solely from Petitioner's counsel and no one
`else. No one else had any input on it except
`for the original publicly available filing
`which JPMorgan case says is perfectly
`acceptable to them.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 16 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Okay.
` MR. PHILLIPS: I guess that's it.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you.
` Patent Owner, would you like to
`briefly respond?
` MR. RODKEY: Yes. I'll be brief
`about this.
` First, and you can check this, I
`believe the RPI cases on joint defense say that
`the mere participation in the joint defense
`group doesn't necessarily create a real party
`in interest. However, that's different from
`the situation we have here where the parties
`are actively coordinating with one another.
` As far as the JPMorgan case goes,
`it's a different set of facts. Basically what
`the -- the Board found in JPMorgan was that the
`original declaratory judgment plaintiff, can't
`be named, no longer had any interest in the
`proceeding because they have settled out and
`had withdrawn from the joint defense group.
` Here CQG is very much having
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 17 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`interest in the patent, so part of the joint
`defense group, as Petitioner's counsel just
`said, they filed a new petition jointly with
`current Petitioner here and actually had a
`rehearing request on the denied petition they
`filed earlier this year.
` And the mere fact that Petitioner
`and CQG are already working together on this
`petition they just filed further suggests
`evidence that they are coordinating on these
`petitions and that they're working together to
`divide them up.
` So the communications between them
`would in fact point to the real party in
`interest if they are actively deciding on these
`petitions and deciding how they want to file
`them, particularly which one to file which one.
` The Virnetx case does point it
`out, as CQG was -- made a suggestion that
`Petitioner actually do the filing for the
`patent because CQG is barred.
` As far as attorney-client
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 18 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`privilege goes, as far as we know, CQG is not a
`client of Petitioner's counsel so there is no
`attorney-client privilege there.
` Whether or not this is work
`product, there is an exception to the Work
`Product Doctrine. If -- whether or not we need
`to find the information to prepare a defense
`and whether or not we can obtain it by any
`other means. Both of those prongs are met
`here.
` Our defense is
`real-party-in-interest defense, and without the
`communications between them we cannot develop
`the information about that
`real-party-in-interest defense, and there's no
`other substantive way to get it for us because
`those communications are communications with
`CQG. We're not a party to that. We don't have
`any ability to obtain the communications.
` So the work product defense would
`not come out or would not preclude us from
`getting these documents here.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 19 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right.
`Thank you. I'm going -- just one more
`question.
` When is your preliminary response
`due?
` MR. RODKEY: Preliminary response
`is due at the end of October, I believe
`October 26th or 29th.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right.
`Thank you.
` I'm going to take a minute to
`consult with my colleagues. I'd like you to
`stay on the line, please.
` (Panel consultation.)
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: This is Judge
`Petravick. Is counsel for Patent Owner still
`there?
` MR. RODKEY: Yes, your Honor,
`Patent Owner's counsel here.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And is counsel
`for Petitioner?
` MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, your Honor.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 20 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: The panel has
`considered the information on the phone call,
`and we are going to authorize a motion for --
`to seek additional discovery.
` Given the time frame we would like
`the motion filed by Wednesday, the 16th.
` Is that date acceptable to you,
`Patent Owner?
` MR. RODKEY: Yes, it is, your
`Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And then we will
`authorize an opposition and would like that
`filed by Monday, the 21st.
` Is that acceptable to you? Hello?
` MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, that's
`acceptable.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right. We
`will not be authorizing a reply at this time.
`If we need additional information, we will ask
`for it. We are going to limit the -- to
`15 pages. All right.
` Are there any other questions?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 21 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. PHILLIPS: I'm sorry. The
`opposition is also 15 pages?
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Yes.
` THE REPORTER: Excuse me. This is
`the court reporter. It doesn't sound like
`there's any other questions. May I just take a
`roll call to be sure that I have everybody who
`is present?
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Yes. Just give
`us one more minute, please.
` THE REPORTER: Thank you.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: I would also
`like to tell you that I will memorialize this
`call in an order which we will send out
`shortly. Please do note your time frame starts
`from today.
` All right. Court reporter, if
`you'd like to do your roll call.
` Counsel for Patent Owner could you
`please state your name?
` MR. RODKEY: Yes. Counsel for
`Patent Owner is Kevin Rodkey, R-O-D-K-E-Y,
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 22 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Erika Arner, and Erika, E-R-I-K-A, Arner,
`A-R-N-E-R, Rachel Emsley, E-M-S-L-E-Y, and Cory
`Bell, C-O-R-Y, B-E-L-L.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Counsel for
`Petitioner?
` MR. PHILLIPS: John Philips,
`J-O-H-N, P-H-I-L-L-I-P-S.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Was there
`additional counsel for Petitioner?
` MR. PHILLIPS: He's not of record.
`But, I'm sorry, go ahead.
` MR. KESSEL: Yes. I believe
`several of the other counsel are also not of
`record.
` This is Adam Kessel, K-E-S-S-E-L.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Mr. Kessel,
`you're not of record in the case? You're not
`backup relief counsel? Could you please
`explain your relationship to the case?
` MR. KESSEL: I represent the
`Petitioner in litigation, which I believe is
`true with some of the counsel for Patent Owner.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 23 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`
`24
`
` We had a similar setup with the
`last hearing in this matter.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right. My
`name is Judge Petravick, P-E-T-R-A-V-I-C-K.
`There's Judge Medley, M-E-D-L-E-Y, and Judge
`Hoffmann, H-O-F-F-M-A-N-N.
` Patent Owner, do you have any
`problems with counsel being on the phone call?
` MR. RODKEY: No, that's fine for
`Patent Owner.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you. All
`right. Then we are -- this call is adjourned.
`Thank you. Bye-bye.
` MR. RODKEY: Thank you, your
`Honor.
` (Ending time noted: 1:22 p.m.)
`
`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 24 of 31
`
`

`
`25
`
`CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
`
`I, Cynthia J.
`
`Conforti, Registered
`
`Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and
`
`the
`for the State of Illinois, County of Cook,
`officer before whom the proceedings were taken,
`do hereby certify that the foregoing transcript
`is a true and correct record of these
`proceedings;
`that said proceedings were taken
`in Stenotype notes by me on the 10th day of
`September, 2015, commencing at 12:59 p.m. and
`ending at 1:22 p.m.
`
`I further certify that present on behalf of
`Petitioner Tradestation Group,
`Inc. were John
`C. Phillips, Esq. and Adam Kessel, Esq. of
`Fish & Richardson and present on behalf of
`Patent Owner Trading Technologies
`International,
`Inc. were Kevin D. Rodkey, Esq.,
`Rachel L. Emsley, Esq., Erika Harmon Arner,
`Esq., and Cory C. Bell, Esq. of Finnegan,
`Henderson, Farabow, Dunner, LLP.
`
`am not related to,
`I
`I further certify that
`nor associated with any of the parties or their
`attorneys, nor do I have any disqualifying
`interest, personal or financial within.
`
`‘Dated this 11th day of September 2015 at
`Cook County, Illinois.
`
`_
`
`REPORTER'S SEAL
`
`
`OFFICIL SEAL
`‘ CYNTHIA .1. CONFORTI
`NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF ILLINOIS
`MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 12, 2019
`
`
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Page 25 of 31
`
`Page 25 of 31
`
`

`
`
`
`Conference CallConference Call
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00161CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015September 10, 2015
`
`1
`
`A
`ability 19:19
`acceptable
`16:22 21:7
`21:14,16
`accepted
`16:13
`action 7:10
`10:1
`actions 10:2
`actively 17:14
`18:15
`adam 4:11
`5:15 23:15
`25:10
`additional
`6:19 7:19 9:3
`21:4,19 23:9
`adjourned
`24:12
`administrative
`2:9
`admissions
`9:7
`admitted 7:12
`8:7,12
`admitting 10:4
`10:12
`afternoon 5:1
`ago 6:1
`agreement
`13:22 14:4
`agreements
`14:21 15:3
`ahead 23:11
`allegation 8:5
`anticipated
`13:21 15:1,8
`15:21
`anybody6:5
`appeal 1:2,9
`2:4
`appearing 2:2
`
`apple 11:4,6
`11:10 12:5
`arent 15:12
`argument
`13:10,13
`arguments 9:4
`arner 3:6,13
`5:10 23:1,1,2
`25:12
`arrange 6:13
`arranged 6:15
`asking 13:18
`asserted 12:12
`associated
`25:15
`atlanta 4:7
`attorneyclient
`14:2 15:14
`18:22 19:3
`attorneys
`25:15
`authorization
`7:2,18
`authorize 21:3
`21:12
`authorizing
`21:18
`available 13:7
`16:20
`aware 7:6 16:6
`16:11
`B
`backup 23:18
`barred 11:13
`18:21
`basically 8:16
`11:5 14:19
`17:16
`begun 10:3
`behalf 2:4,11
`3:4 25:9,11
`believe 5:18
`
`7:15 8:3
`11:12 17:9
`20:7 23:12
`23:21
`bell 3:15,20
`5:11 23:3,3
`25:13
`bit 9:7 14:18
`bloomberg 8:2
`8:3
`board 1:2,10
`2:5 7:8 11:8
`11:14 13:18
`17:17
`boston 3:18
`breaking
`14:14,17
`brief 9:19 16:8
`17:6
`briefly 17:5
`briefs 9:11
`15:6,20
`broader 15:10
`byebye 24:13
`C
`c 1:10 2:1,1,6
`2:13 3:1,1,15
`4:1,1 25:10
`25:13
`california 2:16
`call 5:4 6:18
`7:2 21:2 22:7
`22:14,18
`24:8,12
`camino 2:15
`cant 15:19
`17:18
`case 1:4 7:11
`7:22 10:20
`11:2 12:8,20
`12:21 13:11
`16:21 17:15
`
`18:18 23:17
`23:19
`cases 10:19
`11:2,4 12:14
`17:9
`cause 9:3
`cbm 13:1
`cbm2015001...
`1:4 5:5
`certain 11:10
`certificate
`25:1
`certify 25:6,9
`25:14
`changes 8:15
`check 17:8
`checking 16:5
`client 19:2
`clone 8:11
`colleagues
`20:12
`com 2:18 3:13
`3:20,21
`come 9:9
`19:21
`commencing
`25:8
`common 14:3
`communicat...
`7:20 8:22
`13:19 14:20
`15:3,13
`18:13 19:13
`19:17,17,19
`completely
`12:4,7
`conference
`5:4
`conforti 1:11
`6:7 25:3
`considered
`21:2
`consult 20:12
`
`consultation
`20:14
`contd 3:2 4:2
`contrary 8:18
`cook 25:5,18
`cooperated
`12:21 16:13
`cooperative
`13:4
`coordinate
`10:1
`coordinated
`12:9 16:12
`coordinating
`7:14 8:8 10:5
`10:22 12:16
`17:14 18:10
`coordination
`7:16,16 9:8
`copetitioners
`12:22
`correct 25:6
`cory 3:15,20
`5:10 23:2,3
`25:13
`counsel 5:6,9
`5:12,15
`16:18 18:2
`19:2 20:16
`20:19,20
`22:19,21
`23:4,9,13,18
`23:22 24:8
`county 25:5,18
`couple 16:7
`court 6:6,10
`6:14,16 7:12
`8:9 9:8,13
`10:19 13:11
`15:5,17,18
`22:5,17
`cqg 7:6,9,12
`7:17,17,20
`
`
`
`202-220-4158202-220-4158
`
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`www.hendersonlegalservices.comwww.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 26 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`2
`
`7:22 8:7,16
`9:1,12,18,21
`10:13 11:13
`11:18 12:20
`13:19 14:21
`15:4,7 16:14
`17:22 18:8
`18:19,21
`19:1,18
`cqgs 8:11,15
`10:9 11:14
`create 12:17
`17:11
`creates 9:2
`crr 1:11
`csr 1:11
`current 11:16
`18:4
`cynthia 1:11
`6:7 25:3
`D
`d 4:4 25:12
`date 21:7
`dated 25:17
`day 25:7,17
`decided 8:2
`11:8
`deciding 18:15
`18:16
`decisions 11:9
`declaration
`13:9
`declaratory
`7:9 17:18
`defendants
`9:21 10:5
`12:10
`defense 12:13
`12:16 15:14
`17:9,10,21
`18:2 19:7,11
`19:12,15,20
`
`denied 7:8
`8:12 11:14
`18:5
`deny 13:2
`determine 7:3
`develop 19:13
`developments
`9:20
`dialin 5:22
`dialing 6:1
`didnt 8:15 12:6
`diego 2:16
`different 5:22
`12:4,7 17:12
`17:16
`direction 1:12
`directly 13:12
`discovery 6:19
`7:19 8:20 9:3
`13:4,6,16
`21:4
`discussed
`10:21
`discussing
`15:7
`disqualifying
`25:15
`district 7:12
`7:13 8:9 9:13
`divide 18:12
`divided 10:13
`dividing 7:15
`doctrine 19:6
`documents
`15:2,5 19:22
`doesnt 17:11
`22:5
`dont 13:2,6
`19:18
`drive 3:10
`due 20:5,7
`dunner 3:8
`25:13
`
`E
`e 2:1,1,1 3:1,1
`3:1 4:1,1,1
`earlier 18:6
`ecmr 10:10
`effective 15:15
`efforts 12:9,16
`13:5
`either 14:2
`el 2:15
`emsley 3:16
`3:21 5:11
`23:2,2 25:12
`erika 3:6,13
`5:10 23:1,1,1
`25:12
`esq 2:6,7,8,13
`3:6,15,16 4:4
`4:11 25:10
`25:10,12,12
`25:13,13
`essentially
`8:10
`est 1:8
`estoppel 16:12
`everybody
`22:7
`evidence 13:9
`18:10
`exact 13:10
`exception 19:5
`excuse 22:4
`exhibit 9:17
`10:7,16
`exhibits 9:15
`expert 8:15,17
`explain 23:19
`explained 16:9
`extent 13:3
`F
`f 2:1 3:1 4:1
`fact 13:6 16:11
`
`18:7,14
`factors 8:2,3
`facts 17:16
`fairly 8:21
`far 17:15 18:22
`19:1
`farabow 3:7
`25:13
`file 7:3,19
`10:10 11:6
`11:10,17
`12:5 18:16
`18:17
`filed 7:7,9 8:10
`9:11,14,16
`12:21 13:9
`13:20 15:1,8
`15:18,21
`18:3,6,9 21:6
`21:13
`filing 7:14 8:8
`14:22 16:20
`18:20
`filings 10:2
`13:22 15:17
`financial 25:16
`find 19:7
`fine 24:9
`finnegan 3:7
`3:13,20,21
`25:13
`first 6:20 15:4
`17:8
`fish 2:14 4:11
`25:11
`flavor 14:12
`foregoing 25:6
`forth 9:4 16:8
`found 17:17
`four 10:15
`12:10
`fr 2:18
`frame 21:5
`
`22:15
`freedom 3:9
`3:10
`fully 16:11
`funded 8:16
`funding 16:13
`further 18:9
`25:9,14
`G
`garrett 3:7
`georgia 4:7
`getting 19:22
`give 14:12
`22:9
`given 9:20
`21:5
`go 16:2 23:11
`goes 17:15
`19:1
`going 12:13
`20:2,11 21:3
`21:20
`good 5:1 9:2
`grant 11:7
`15:1
`great 6:4
`group 1:4 2:11
`12:13,16
`15:14 17:11
`17:21 18:2
`25:10
`guess 16:7
`17:2
`
`H
`happening
`11:13
`harmon 3:6
`25:12
`hear 6:20
`11:21 14:16
`hearing 15:6
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 27 of 31
`
`

`
`Conference Call
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`September 10, 2015
`3
`
`15:20 24:2
`held 12:15
`hello 21:14
`henderson 3:7
`25:13
`hes 5:21 23:10
`hoffmann 2:7
`5:3 24:6,6
`hold 16:4
`honor 5:8 6:22
`9:10 11:1
`20:18,22
`21:10 24:15
`I
`id 20:12
`idiots 16:15
`ill 17:6
`illinois 1:11
`7:13 25:5,18
`im 6:8 14:5,13
`16:1 20:2,11
`22:1 23:11
`including 10:3
`15:6,20
`information
`19:7,14 21:2
`21:19
`input 16:13,16
`16:19
`inquiry 16:17
`interest 7:4,17
`7:22 8:19
`10:22 11:11
`11:19 12:18
`14:3 17:12
`17:19 18:1
`18:15 25:16
`international
`1:6 3:5 25:12
`interrupted
`16:1
`ipr 11:7
`
`iprs 11:4
`issue 6:19
`12:11
`ive 16:3
`J
`j 1:11 2:7 25:3
`john 2:13 5:16
`5:17 6:2 23:6
`23:7 25:10
`joint 12:13,15
`15:13 17:9
`17:10,21
`18:1
`jointly 9:12
`18:3
`jpmorgan
`13:11 16:21
`17:15,17
`judge 1:10 5:1
`5:2,3,3,12,19
`6:4,8,12,17
`9:6 10:17
`11:20 14:5
`14:11,15
`15:16,22
`17:1,3 20:1,9
`20:15,15,20
`21:1,11,17
`22:3,9,12
`23:4,8,16
`24:3,4,5,5,11
`judges 2:9
`judgment 7:9
`17:18
`K
`kessel 4:11
`5:14,16,21
`23:12,15,15
`23:16,20
`25:10
`kevin 4:4 5:10
`
`22:22 25:12
`know 10:20
`19:1
`knows 11:13
`L
`l 2:1 3:1,16 4:1
`25:12
`lane 3:17
`lead 5:15
`lengthy 14:8
`14:10,12
`license 1:11
`limit 21:20
`limited 15:17
`line 5:6,17,20
`6:5,7 20:13
`litigation 9:2
`13:14,15,22
`23:21
`little 9:7 14:18
`llp 3:8 25:13
`longer 17:19
`looking 8:22
`15:12
`M
`m 1:8 24:16
`25:8,8
`ma 3:18
`matter 24:2
`means 8:16
`19:9
`medley 2:8 5:3
`24:5,5
`memorialize
`22:13
`mentioned
`10:15
`mere 17:10
`18:7
`meredith 1:10
`2:6
`
`merely 11:9
`met 8:3 19:9
`minute 20:11
`22:10
`minutes 6:1
`monday 21:13
`motion 7:3,19
`21:3,6
`muted 5:15
`N
`n 2:1,1 3:1,1
`4:1,1
`name 22:20
`24:4
`named 7:4
`17:19
`narrow 8:21
`ne 4:6
`necessarily
`13:15 15:10
`17:11
`need 13:6 19:6
`21:19
`new 18:3
`northern 7:13
`notary 25:4
`note 22:15
`noted 24:16
`notes 16:5
`25:7
`notice 13:18
`O
`o 2:1,1 3:1,1
`4:1,1
`obtain 7:20
`19:8,19
`october 20:7,8
`office 1:1
`officer 25:5
`okay 10:17
`12:1 16:1
`
`17:1
`o