8/4/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Eric Gould-Bear
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` IBG LLC; INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC;
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.; TRADESTATION SECURITIES,
` INC.; TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
` and IBFX, INC.
`
` Petitioner
`
` v.
`
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
` Patent Owner
`
` CBM2015-00161 (Patent No. 6,766,304 B2)
` CBM2015-00172 (Patent No. 7,783,556 B1)
` CBM2015-00179 (Patent No. 7,533,056 B2)
` CBM2015-00181 (Patent No. 7,676,411 B2)
` CBM2015-00182 (Patent No. 6,772,132 B1)
`
` Deposition of ERIC GOULD-BEAR, taken at
` McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP,
` before Donna M. Kazaitis, CSR, RPR, CLR, and
` CRR, commencing at the hour of 9:10 a.m. on
` Thursday, August 4, 2016.
`
`____________________________________________________
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`1
`
`TradeStation v. Trading Technologies
`CBM2015-00172
`Exhibit 1017
`
`

`
`8/4/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Eric Gould-Bear
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
` STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN FOX
` BY: ROBERT SOKOHL, ESQ.
` RICHARD M. BEMBEN, ESQ.
` 1100 New York Avenue, NW
` Washington, DC 20005
` 202.371.2600
` rsokohl@skgf.com
` rbemben@skgf.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
` BY: JENNIFER M. KURCZ, ESQ.
` 300 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606-6709
` 312.913.3311
` kurcz@mbhb.com
`
` FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
` BY: CORY C. BELL, ESQ.
` Two Seaport Lane
` Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2001
` 617.646.1600
` cory.bell@finnegan.com
`
`Page 2
`
` INDEX
` PAGE
`ERIC GOULD-BEAR
` Examination by Mr. Sokohl 4
`
` EXHIBITS
`TRADING TECH PAGE
`Exhibit 2168 Declaration of Eric Gould 12
` Bear
`
`IBG
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 7,676,411 B2 36
` (CBM2015-00181)
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 7,533,056 B2 38
` (CBM2015-00179)
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 6,772,132 B1 38
` (CBM2015-00182)
`
`TS
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2 37
` (CBM2015-00161)
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 7,783,556 B1 38
` (CBM2015-00172)
`
`Page 3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`16
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`56
`
`7
`8
`
`9
`10
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`14
`
`15
`16
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
` ERIC GOULD BEAR,
`having been first duly sworn, was examined and
`testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Could you state your name for the
`record.
` A. Eric Gould Bear.
` MS. KURCZ: Once again, can we
`introduce ourselves for the record, please.
` MR. SOKOHL: Absolutely.
` MS. KURCZ: Good morning. Jennifer
`Kurcz on behalf of the Patent Owner Trading
`Technologies and the witness. I also have with me
`Cory Bell.
` MR. SOKOHL: And Robert Sokohl on
`behalf of IBG and Tradestation, petitioners, from
`Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, and with me is
`Richard Bemben.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Good morning.
` Have you been deposed before?
`Page 4
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. How many times?
` A. Five or six.
` Q. So you know some of the procedures
`that we have to go through here, but I'm going to
`go through a few of them here today.
` We're going to probably take a
`break every hour. If you want to take a break at
`any time, just ask and we'll take a break. All I
`ask is that you answer the question that's pending
`and then we'll take a break.
` A. Okay.
` Q. You have to give verbal a responses.
`You can't nod your head. You've got to say "Yes"
`or "No" or give an answer. That's for the court
`reporter. I'll recognize your nonverbal response
`but the court reporter can't, so I'd just ask that
`you give a verbal answer.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Great. Let's try not to speak over
`each other. I think we'll probably do a pretty
`good job of that. But for the court reporter
`Page 5
`Pages 2 to 5
`202-232-0646
`
`2
`
`

`
`8/4/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Eric Gould-Bear
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`again, if we speak over each other she has trouble
`taking that down.
` If you don't understand a question
`I'm asking, I would ask you just to let me know
`that and I'll try to rephrase it. If you've
`answered the question, I'm going to assume you
`understood it. Is that acceptable?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are you on any medications today?
` A. No.
` Q. Any reason you can't give truthful
`testimony today?
` A. No.
` Q. You understand you're under oath?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How did you prepare for today's
`deposition?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Just counsel
`the witness to the extent it would call for
`revealing attorney-client communications or work
`product information, not to do so.
`
`Page 6
`
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. You can answer.
` A. Are you asking about the preparation
`this week in advance, or are you talking about the
`preparation and the writing of my report?
` Q. Separating the two. So all I'm
`interested in right now is how did you prepare for
`today's deposition?
` A. I reviewed my report, I reviewed some
`of the materials, and spent time with counsel.
` Q. What counsel did you meet with?
` A. Present counsel.
` Q. How long did you meet with counsel?
` A. Two days.
` Q. Was there anyone else present other
`than counsel during those meetings?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Who?
` A. Other attorneys and representatives of
`Trading Technologies.
` Q. Who from Trading Technologies?
` A. Jay.
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
` Q. Knobloch?
` A. Yes. Thank you.
` Q. Anyone else?
` A. I don't think so.
` Q. And other attorneys -- that's fine.
`Just other attorneys.
` A. Yes.
` Q. You mentioned that you reviewed your
`report and some documents. I don't want to
`mischaracterize that, but I think that's what you
`said.
` What documents did you review in
`preparation for this deposition?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, work product.
`To the extent you didn't rely on any information
`or any information refreshed your recollection, I
`instruct the witness not to respond to that.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. You can answer.
` A. I'm going to follow counsel's advice.
` Q. The documents you reviewed, were they
`provided to you by counsel?
`
`Page 8
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. All the documents that you reviewed
`were provided to you by counsel?
` A. No.
` Q. What documents did you review that
`were not provided by counsel?
` A. The exhibits to my report.
` Q. And you reviewed other documents other
`than what was attached to your report?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And I'll ask you what those documents
`were.
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, work product.
` MR. SOKOHL: I don't believe that's
`work product, Counsel. In fact, your own
`co-counsel asked the exact same question of our
`expert and he answered that question.
` MS. KURCZ: And your own co-counsel
`provided the same objection with respect to
`Mr. Roman's testimony regarding which documents he
`reviewed.
` MR. SOKOHL: And ultimately it was
`Page 9
`Pages 6 to 9
`202-232-0646
`
`3
`
`

`
`8/4/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Eric Gould-Bear
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`withdrawn and we allowed the witness to answer the
`questions.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. So you can answer the question.
` A. If you could repeat the question,
`please.
` Q. Sure. What other documents did you
`review that were provided to you by counsel?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, work product.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. You can answer.
` A. So that puts me in a bind.
` Q. It doesn't put you in a bind. You can
`answer the question. Unless counsel instructs you
`not to answer, you can answer the question. She
`objected, you can now answer.
` A. Okay. Thanks for the clarification.
` Q. That's the way it works, is that if
`counsel instructs you not to answer, you're free
`to take her advice and not answer a question. But
`if she doesn't --
` MR. SOKOHL: I'm not trying to counsel
`Page 10
`
`your client. Hopefully you understand that.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. If she objects, you can answer the
`question, moving forward.
` A. Okay.
` I reviewed three of the patents
`that were provided by counsel and articles I had
`written in the past.
` Q. Anything else?
` A. I don't believe counsel provided me
`any other materials this week in preparation.
` Q. You mentioned that you had been
`deposed approximately five times before.
` Do you recall the specifics of
`those depositions?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: What sort of specifics
`are you looking for?
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Sure. Do you remember the specific
`cases where you were deposed?
` A. Yes.
`
`Page 11
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` Q. What were those cases?
` A. If I could have a copy of my CV, that
`would help.
` Q. Absolutely.
` So let me hand you your expert
`report which I believe -- actually, let me
`rephrase that.
` Let me hand you your declaration,
`and that has been marked Trading Tech Exhibit
`2168. And this is in the following CBM
`proceedings: CBM2015-00161, CBM2015-00172,
`CBM2015-00179, CBM2015-00181, and CBM2015-00182.
`(Document tendered to the witness.)
` A. Thank you.
` Q. Do you recognize this document?
` A. It looks like my declaration.
` Q. And is that your signature on Page 29?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. And you signed it on June 26, 2016?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And so my previous question was do you
`recall the specific cases where you were deposed?
`Page 12
`
` A. Yes. In Mad Catz Interactive v. Razor
`USA, in MONKEYmedia v. Apple, in MONKEYmedia v.
`Walt Disney, et al. Those are the ones I can
`recall.
` Q. I'll put a little star next to it.
` Since I can't seem to find it,
`where is Mad Catz?
` A. It's on the bottom of the first page
`of my CV.
` Q. Thank you.
` Why were you deposed in Mad Catz
`Interactive versus Razor?
` A. McKool Smith represented Razor and
`hired me as a testifying expert in the matter.
` Q. Were you hired as an expert?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And what was your area of expertise in
`that case?
` A. In user experience, user interface,
`human factors.
` Q. Do you know if that case went to
`trial -- let me rephrase that.
`
`Page 13
`Pages 10 to 13
`202-232-0646
`
`4
`
`

`
`8/4/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Eric Gould-Bear
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` Do you know the outcome of that
`case?
` A. I believe it settled.
` Q. How many times were you deposed in
`that case?
` A. Once.
` Q. Was Razor the defendant or the patent
`holder -- that's a horrible question.
` Was Razor the patent holder?
` A. They were a patent holder. They were
`the defendant in a patent suit by Mad Catz with
`counterclaims of their own patents.
` Q. And were you an expert on behalf of
`Razor in regard to their patents, or were you an
`expert in regard to defending a lawsuit that was
`brought against Razor regarding patents?
` A. Both.
` Q. And in MONKEYmedia versus Apple, what
`was the context of your deposition in that case?
` A. MONKEYmedia filed patent infringement
`suits against Apple, and so I was deposed
`regarding claim construction.
`
`Page 14
`
` Q. Which side did you represent?
` A. MONKEYmedia.
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: To be clear, I didn't
`represent anybody. I'm not a lawyer.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. What was the -- did you work for
`MONKEYmedia?
` A. Yes. I'm an owner of MONKEYmedia.
` Q. So you were being deposed for what
`purpose in MONKEYmedia versus Apple?
` A. As expert testimony.
` Q. So you act as an expert for
`MONKEYmedia?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you're the owner of MONKEYmedia?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. How many times were you deposed
`in that case, MONKEYmedia versus Apple?
` A. At least three times.
` Q. Did you provide an expert report in
`MONKEYmedia versus Apple?
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
` A. I provided several declarations.
` Q. Did you -- just going back to Mad Catz
`versus Razor. Did you provide an expert report in
`that case?
` A. It was either a report or a
`declaration. I don't recall.
` Q. What was the outcome of MONKEYmedia
`versus Apple lawsuit?
` A. It's still pending.
` Q. In MONKEYmedia versus Walt Disney
`Company, et al., in what context were you deposed
`in that case?
` A. The same as in the Apple case.
` Q. And you acted as an expert for
`MONKEYmedia?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Could you reframe the
`question?
` MR. SOKOHL: Sure.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Were you deposed as an expert in the
`MONKEYmedia versus Walt Disney Company case?
`Page 16
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you provide an expert report
`or declaration in that case?
` A. Several declarations.
` Q. How many times were you deposed in the
`MONKEYmedia versus Walt Disney case?
` A. At least three. And those were the
`same depositions with Apple.
` Q. Okay. So they happened at the same
`time?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You said that you had been deposed on
`claim construction; is that correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Has the court ruled in that case
`regarding claim construction?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did the court agree with your analysis
`in that case?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: On several points, yes.
`
`Page 17
`Pages 14 to 17
`202-232-0646
`
`5
`
`

`
`8/4/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Eric Gould-Bear
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And on several points not?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: That's true.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. In MONKEYmedia versus Apple and
`MONKEYmedia versus The Walt Disney Company, are
`you an inventor on the patents being asserted?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you have co-inventors on those
`patents?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And in the MONKEYmedia versus Apple
`case, how many patents are being asserted against
`Apple?
` A. I believe three.
` Q. Are the same three patents also
`asserted in the MONKEYmedia versus Walt Disney
`Company?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are there additional patents being
`asserted against the defendants in the MONKEYmedia
`Page 18
`
`versus Walt Disney Company?
` A. Not at this time.
` Q. So the same patents are being asserted
`against Apple that are being asserted against the
`Walt Disney Company, et al.?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Thank you.
` And you're an inventor on all three
`of those patents?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Generally, what is the subject matter
`of those three patents? And I realize there's
`three, so you might want to explain each one.
` A. There are two families.
` Q. Okay.
` A. And they are on Page 7 of my CV, which
`is Page 37 of the declaration.
` The first family is the top block
`called "computer user interface with nonsalience
`de-emphasis."
` Q. And which patents are being asserted
`in that category?
`
`Page 19
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` A. I don't recall which of those
`specifically are asserted.
` Q. Okay.
` A. And the other family is the third
`block, "method and storage device for expanding
`and contracting continuous play media seamlessly."
` Q. And which patent?
` A. The first one on the list, the '158
`Patent.
` Q. And I notice under the column
`"Inventor" you're the only -- no. I'm wrong.
`There are two inventors listed; correct?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. How many inventors are listed?
` A. In the first family it's just myself.
` Q. Okay.
` A. In the other family there's one
`co-inventor.
` Q. And who is that?
` A. Rachel Strickland.
` Q. Thank you. Is "Justin" your middle
`Page 20
`
`name?
` A. It's one of my middle names.
` Q. And earlier when we were talking about
`the documents you had reviewed, you mentioned that
`you reviewed a number of articles, your own
`articles.
` Do you recall which articles those
`were that you reviewed?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And what are those articles?
` A. There was an article that I had
`written for IP Watchdog and an interview with IP
`Watchdog.
` Q. Thank you.
` I think you mentioned earlier that
`you're not an attorney, but I'll ask it anyway:
`Are you a patent attorney?
` A. No.
` Q. Do you consider yourself an expert in
`patent law?
` A. No.
` Q. You've served as an advisor, I
`
`Page 21
`Pages 18 to 21
`202-232-0646
`
`6
`
`

`
`8/4/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Eric Gould-Bear
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`understand, to executive in IP strategy for
`Austin's Capital Factory. Is that correct? In
`fact, I'll refer you to -- let me rephrase that
`question.
` Let's go to Page 9 of your report,
`Paragraph -- that seems wrong. Hold on a second.
`Paragraph 19.
` A. Okay.
` Q. It mentions Austin's Capital Factory.
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And it says "I served as an advisor to
`executives at intellectual property strategy."
` How did you advise -- horrible
`question.
` What was your function as advisor
`to Austin's Capital Factory?
` A. To be clear, I wasn't an advisor "to"
`Capital Factory.
` Q. Okay.
` A. Capital Factory is an early stage
`startup incubator in which I am an investor and
`Page 22
`
`advisor.
` The advisory work is keeping office
`hours so that the executives of the startups can
`come and seek support.
` Q. They seek support from you?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you advise as to intellectual
`property strategy?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Could you reframe the
`question?
` MR. SOKOHL: Sure.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. The executives that -- do executives
`seek your advice on intellectual property
`strategy?
` A. From time to time.
` Q. And what type of strategy do you
`provide generally?
` A. With those people?
` Q. With those executives, correct.
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. I'd just
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`caution the witness to the extent it would cause
`you to reveal third-party confidential information
`regarding specifics.
` MR. SOKOHL: Absolutely. I don't want
`specifics.
` THE WITNESS: Thank you.
` The most common concern that
`startup executives have is how they spend money.
`And so they look for help thinking about filing
`strategies and getting clarity around choice of
`counsel and understanding the differences between
`provisional applications, utility applications,
`and budget planning.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Thank you. Do you know what a covered
`business method -- excuse me. That's not right.
` Do you know what a covered business
`method patent is?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Have you ever heard the term "covered
`business method"?
`
`Page 24
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. And what's your understanding of it?
` A. I find myself at a disadvantage in
`knowing what it is. I'm better versed at what
`it's not.
` Q. Have you studied the case law
`surrounding covered business method patents?
` A. I have not studied the case law.
` Q. Do you consider yourself an expert in
`covered business method patents?
` A. No.
` Q. Do you know what MD Trader is?
` A. I have an understanding.
` Q. What's your understanding?
` A. It's an application or suite of
`applications for traders.
` Q. Have you ever used MD Trader?
` A. I don't believe so.
` Q. You don't believe so? Wouldn't you
`remember that?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` MR. SOKOHL: Argumentative. I'm not
`Page 25
`Pages 22 to 25
`202-232-0646
`
`7
`
`

`
`8/4/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Eric Gould-Bear
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`trying, but your answer was a bit cryptic.
` THE WITNESS: I apologize.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. You don't recall ever using the
`product MD Trader?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: On the page that you
`referred me to before, Page 9 of 82, in Paragraph
`17 I reveal my work on Charles Schwab's active
`trading application StreetSmart Edge.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Yes.
` A. In that project, my team and I tested
`a number of competing products and we sat with
`many traders to look at their habits, what worked
`well, what didn't work well in their daily life
`trading. I don't recall which products we tested
`at that time.
` Q. Great.
` A. MD Trader may have been one of them.
`I don't know.
` Q. Thank you for that clarification.
`Page 26
`
` But as you sit here today, you
`don't recall ever using MD Trader?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't specifically
`recall testing it.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Do you know how to analyze a patent to
`determine whether it's a CBM patent?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Actually, before you answer that
`question, would it be okay with you if I used the
`acronym "CBM" to refer to covered business method?
` A. Yes.
` Q. It would be easier.
` Do you know how to analyze a patent
`to determine whether it's a CBM patent?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form, legal
`conclusion.
` THE WITNESS: In this matter I have
`been given, I've been asked to analyze a patent in
`specific ways.
`
`Page 27
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And in what specific ways?
` A. I've been asked by TT's counsel to
`explain whether and how a graphical user interface
`design and development is technology and whether
`the inventions claimed in the TT patents are
`technical solutions to technical problems.
` Q. And is that the test you applied?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Are you asking me --
`which test are you asking me about?
` MR. SOKOHL: Sure. Let me ask you a
`different question.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. What is the proper test to use to
`analyze whether a patent is a CBM patent?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form, legal
`conclusion.
` THE WITNESS: I'm not qualified to
`answer that.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Thank you.
`
`Page 28
`
` Earlier you had referenced the
`StreetSmart Edge trading application in Paragraph
`17?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did that compete with MD Trader?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't know.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Since you reference Paragraph 17, what
`type of application was StreetSmart Edge?
` A. StreetSmart Edge was a stock trading
`application targeting active traders.
` Q. And what aspects of that application
`did you assist in -- let me rephrase that.
` What was the functionality of the
`StreetSmart Edge generally?
` A. StreetSmart Edge brought together
`research and trading and tracking, and other
`features I don't recall, to help active traders in
`trading.
` Q. Could they trade -- could they make a
`trade with StreetSmart Edge?
`
`Page 29
`Pages 26 to 29
`202-232-0646
`
`8
`
`

`
`8/4/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Eric Gould-Bear
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. Was there a graphical user interface
`with StreetSmart Edge?
` A. The StreetSmart Edge application had a
`graphical user interface.
` Q. In what year was the -- rephrase.
` Was StreetSmart Edge released
`commercially by Charles Schwab?
` A. I don't recall.
` Q. Was it a proprietary software used by
`Charles Schwab or was it used by its customers?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: StreetSmart Edge was
`intended for its customers. Whether its employees
`used it or not, I have no insight.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Do you know if Charles Schwab's
`customers used StreetSmart Edge?
` A. I believe so.
` Q. Do you know if the trades entered by
`customer of Charles Schwab that used StreetSmart
`Edge were sent to a broker or were the trades sent
`Page 30
`
`to an exchange?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't know.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. I'll just ask this again because I
`wasn't sure if you said you don't know or if I
`asked my question poorly.
` Do you know when customers of
`Charles Schwab first started using StreetSmart
`Edge?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` MR. SOKOHL: Actually, you said you
`don't even know if customers used it. I'll ask it
`anyway.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Do you know when customers of Charles
`Schwab first started using StreetSmart Edge?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't know.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. When did you do the work that's
`referenced in Paragraph 17?
`
`Page 31
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` A. I'm not sure exactly.
` Q. Was it after 2010?
` A. No.
` Q. So it was before 2010?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Was it after 2000?
` A. I'll help you.
` Q. Sure.
` A. On the first page of my CV, under
`Project 202 I held positions at Project 202 from
`2005 to 2009. It was somewhere in that window --
` Q. Thank you.
` A. -- that that project occurred.
` Q. And what role did you play in the
`development of StreetSmart Edge?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I led a team of user
`interface and interaction designers in studying
`trader habits and usability challenges and writing
`functional and technical specifications for
`Schwab's engineering team to implement that
`addressed those usability challenges.
`
`Page 32
`
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Okay. And what did you learn when you
`studied trader habits?
` A. I believe that's Schwab's confidential
`information.
` Q. Fair enough.
` Was the product that was ultimately
`provided to Charles Schwab, did it address those
`usability challenges?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: My team provided design
`strategy and functional and technical
`specifications to Schwab, not the product.
`Schwab's engineering team built the product
`perhaps to those specifications, perhaps not.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Okay. So you've never -- I understand
`now. Have you ever -- let me back up.
` Do you write code, programming
`code?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And in what languages?
`
`Page 33
`Pages 30 to 33
`202-232-0646
`
`9
`
`

`
`8/4/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Eric Gould-Bear
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` A. These days in Objective C.
` Q. Have you ever written code for a
`trading application?
` A. No, I haven't.
` Q. Have you ever built -- never mind.
` Other than for Charles Schwab, have
`you ever designed any other applications for
`trading software?
` A. Do you mean for trading stocks?
` Q. Horrible question. Yes. I knew as
`soon as I said it, it was a horrible question.
` Other than Charles Schwab, have you
`ever designed any other applications for trading
`commodities?
` A. Not that I recall.
` Q. Referring again to your declaration,
`who drafted this declaration?
` A. I did.
` Q. Did you have any assistance -- other
`than from counsel, did you have any assistants
`help you with the drafting of this declaration?
` A. No.
`
`Page 34
`
` Q. How many hours did you spend drafting
`this declaration, approximately?
` A. I don't know how many drafting
`separated from reading materials.
` Q. Collectively how long did you spend
`preparing this declaration?
` A. About 50 hours.
` Q. And is it complete and accurate, to
`the best of your knowledge?
` A. Yes.
` Q. As you sit here today, are there any
`corrections that you'd like to make that you found
`after you've reviewed it since signing it?
` A. There is one that I'm aware of.
` Q. Okay.
` A. At the bottom of Page 26 in Footnote
`2, on the third line I'd like to strike the word
`"only."
` Q. And why would you like to strike that
`word?
` A. After re-reading the specification, I
`realized that having the word "only" would have
`Page 35
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`prohibited a preferred embodiment from being
`possible under the claims.
` Q. And what was the preferred
`embodiment -- let me help you.
` I'll hand you what's been marked as
`IBG 1001 which is U.S. Patent Number 7,676,411.
`And if it's okay with you, I'd like to refer to
`this as the '411 Patent. Is that okay? (Document
`tendered to the witness.)
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. Great.
` A. Thank you.
` Q. And I believe my question was "and
`what was the preferred embodiment" that you
`referenced?
` A.