`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 74
`Entered: October 18, 2016
`
`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)1
`CBM2015-00172 (Patent No. 7,783,556 B1) 2
`CBM2015-00179 (Patent No. 7,533,056 B2)
`CBM2015-00181 (Patent No. 7,676,411 B2)
`CBM2015-00182 (Patent No. 6,772,132 B1)
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK and JEREMY M. PLENZLER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`1 Case CBM2016-00035 has been joined with this proceeding.
`2 Case CBM2016-00040 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`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)
`
`
`
`A conference call was held between counsel for the parties and Judges
`
`Petravick and Plenzler on October 18, 2016. The purpose of the call was to
`
`discuss the parties’ demonstratives for the oral hearing, scheduled for the
`
`next day. This Order summarizes the call.
`
`
`
`
`
`In an Order entered on September 28, 2016 (“the Oral Argument
`
`Order”), we explained that demonstrative exhibits are not an opportunity to
`
`add new evidence to the record or an opportunity for additional briefing.
`
`Paper 110, 3–4. 3 The Order stated:
`
`Demonstrative exhibits are limited to reproduction of portions
`of papers of record or portions of the evidence specifically
`discussed in the substantive papers of record. Demonstrative
`exhibits must include a citation to where the reproduced portion
`of the paper is in the record or to where the evidence is
`discussed in a substantive paper in the record.
`
`Id. at 4 (“the demonstrative requirement”).
`
`On October 17, 2016, the parties filed demonstrative exhibits. Exs.
`
`1058, 2410. As authorized by the Oral Argument Order (id. at 4–5), the
`
`parties also filed objections to the demonstrative exhibits. Papers 118, 121.
`
`Both parties object to the others’ demonstratives on the basis that the
`
`demonstratives do not comply with the demonstrative requirement. Id.
`
`After review of the demonstrative exhibits and based upon
`
`information discussed during the conference call, we determine that the
`
`demonstratives do not comply with the demonstrative requirement. For
`
`
`3 For the purposes of this Order, CBM2015-00181 is representative and all
`citations are to papers in CBM2015-00181 unless otherwise noted.
`
`2
`
`
`
`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)
`
`example, Patent Owner’s demonstrative exhibits contain pages reproducing
`
`claims at issue in Federal Circuit Decisions. For example, page 74 of Patent
`
`Owner’s demonstrative exhibit reproduces a claim from In re TLI Commc’ns
`
`LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2016). Page 74 does not
`
`include a citation to where that Decision is discussed in a substantive paper
`
`in the record. Indeed, TLI Commc’ns does not appear to be discussed in any
`
`substantive paper in the record.
`
`During the conference call, we ordered the parties to review its
`
`demonstrative exhibits and remove any material that does not comply with
`
`our demonstrative requirement. The parties may replace the material with
`
`corresponding reproductions of portions of the record that comply with the
`
`demonstrative requirement. We authorized the parties to refile
`
`demonstrative exhibits by the end of day on October 18, 2016. The refiled
`
`demonstrative exhibits must comply with the demonstrative requirement and
`
`any other applicable requirements provided for in our Rules.
`
`Along with the refiled demonstrative exhibits, lead counsel for the
`
`parties must certify that the new demonstrative exhibits are limited to
`
`reproduction of portions of papers of record or portions of the evidence
`
`specifically discussed in the substantive papers of record and the new
`
`demonstrative exhibits include correct citations to where the reproduced
`
`portions of the paper is in the record or to where the evidence is discussed in
`
`a substantive paper in the record.
`
`Should a party determine upon review that the originally filed
`
`demonstrative exhibits comply with the demonstrative requirement, lead
`
`3
`
`
`
`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)
`
`counsel for the party must certify that the original demonstrative exhibits are
`
`limited to reproduction of portions of papers of record or portions of the
`
`evidence specifically discussed in the substantive papers of record and the
`
`original demonstrative exhibits include correct citations to where the
`
`reproduced portions of the papers is in the record or to where the evidence is
`
`discussed in a substantive paper in the record.
`
`The originally filed demonstrative exhibits will be expunged from the
`
`record, unless the certification described above is filed by the end of day on
`
`October 18, 2016. See 37 C.F.R. § 7(a).
`
`As stated in our Oral Argument Order, “[t]he parties are not permitted
`
`to raise new arguments or evidence at oral hearing.” Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Any new
`
`arguments or evidence will not be considered. If a party desires to bring a
`
`new argument, evidence, or authority to our attention, the party should
`
`contact us at the trials@uspto.gov box to request authorization, for example,
`
`to file supplemental information, supplemental briefing, or a notice of
`
`additional authority, as appropriate under our Rules. See 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.20, 42.223.
`
`Additional housekeeping matters were also addressed during the
`
`conference call. First, Patent Owner sent an email to the trials@uspto.gov
`
`box requesting to permission to use multiple computers during the oral
`
`hearings. We indicated that Patent Owner may use multiple computers.
`
`
`
`Second, with regards to CBM2015-00181 and CBM2015-00182,
`
`Petitioner sent an email to the trials@uspto.gov box informing us of a
`
`4
`
`
`
`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)
`
`typographical error in the Petitioner’s Replies. In several places in these
`
`Replies, Petitioners mistakenly refer to Exhibit 2233 to refer to the group of
`
`traders’ declarations that Patent Owner filed as Exhibit 2223. We noted the
`
`correction.
`
`It is so ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS:
`
`Michael T. Rosato
`Matthew A. Argenti
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`margenti@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`Robert Sokohl
`Lori Gordon
`Jonathan Strang
`Richard Bemben
`STERN, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX
`Rsokohl-ptab@skgf.com
`Lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`Jstrang-ptab@skgf.com
`Rbemben-ptab@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`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)
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Erika H. Arner
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`Kevin D. Rodkey
`Rachel L. Emsley
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRET & DUNNER, LLP
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`kevin.rodkey@finnegan.com
`rache.emsley@finnegan.com
`
`
`Steven F. Borsand
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`tt-patent-cbm@tradingtechnologies.com
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`