`
`
`
`
`
`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 CBM2015-001721
`Patent No. 7,783,556 B1
`
`___________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`1 Case CBM2016-00040 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`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 CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`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 CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`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 CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`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 CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`
`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 CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`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 CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`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 CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`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 CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`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 CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`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 CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`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 CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`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 CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`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 CBM2015-00172
`Attorney Docket No. 41919-0002CP1
`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
`Rachel L. Emsley
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`2 Seaport Lane, 6th Floor
`Boston, MA 02210-2001
`
`Steven F. Borsand
`Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`222 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 1100
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`Michael D. Gannon
`Leif R. Sigmond, Jr.
`McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
`300 South Wacker Drive
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`Email: Trading-Tech-CBM@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Diana Bradley/
`
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`