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.;
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case CBM2015-00179
`Patent No. 7,533,056
`____________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IBG LLC; INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC;
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.; TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.;
`TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and IBFX, INC.;
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case CBM2015-00179
`Patent No. 7,533,056
`____________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC, TradeStation Group, Inc., TradeStation
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00179
`
`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”) submitted before the
`
`institution of the trial. 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 bases:
`
`
`
`TT Exhibit 2003 – Myers, Brad A. “A brief history of human Computer
`
`Interaction Technology.”
`
`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.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document to prove
`
`the content of the original document, Petitioners object to this document as not
`
`being an original document under FRE 1002, an authentic duplicate under FRE
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`1003, nor a document that falls under any exceptions to the original-document
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00179
`
`requirement, including those of FRE 1004.
`
`TT Exhibit 2004 - NASA Web Page Print out, Technical Areas
`
`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, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`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.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`TT Exhibit 2005 – NASA Web Page Print out, HCI Group
`
`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,
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00179
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`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.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`TT Exhibit 2006 - UW HCI Degree Option
`
`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, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00179
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`TT Exhibit 2007 - RIT Masters in Human Computer Interaction
`
`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, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`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.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`TT Exhibit 2008 – RPI Web Page Print out, M.S. in HCI
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00179
`
`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, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`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.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`TT Exhibit 2009 - Tufts Human-Computer Interaction Certificate Program
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00179
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`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.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`TT Exhibit 2010- Georgia Tech Masters in Human-Computer Interaction
`
`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, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`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 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00179
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`TT Exhibit 2011 - DePaul Masters in Human-Computer Interaction
`
`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, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`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.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`TT Exhibit 2012 - Carnegie-Mellon Masters of Human-Computer Interaction
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00179
`
`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, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`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.
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`TT Exhibit 2017 – Supplemental Response of Certain Defendant to TT’s
`
`Emergency Motion, Civil Action No. 10-C-715
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00179
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`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.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`TT Exhibit 2018 –Transcript of proceedings - Motion, Civil Action No. 10-C-
`
`715
`
`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, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00179
`
`TT Exhibit 2020 – Declaration of Harold Abilock, CBM2014-00131
`
`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, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`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.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`TT Exhibit 2021 –Defendants’ Case Management Statement for May 5, 2011,
`
`Civil Action No. 10-C-715
`
`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,
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00179
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`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.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`TT Exhibit 2022 –Position Statement of the TD Ameritrade Defendants on the
`
`Federal Circuit’s Decision in OEC and how this Case Should Proceed, Civil
`
`Action No. 10-C-715
`
`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, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00179
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`TT Exhibit 2023 –Reply Memorandum in Support of IBG Defendants’
`
`Motion to Stay Proceedings, Civil Action No. 10-C-715
`
`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, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`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.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`TT Exhibit 2024 –TradeStation Defendants’ Joinder In and Motion for Stay,
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00179
`
`Civil Action No. 10-C-715
`
`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, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`TT Exhibit 2025 –Reply Memorandum in Support of TD Ameritrade
`
`Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings, Civil Action No. 10-C-715
`
`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, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`TT Exhibit 2026 –Response of Certain Defendants to Trading Technologies’
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00179
`
`“Emergency” Motion, Civil Action No. 10-C-715
`
`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, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`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.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`TT Exhibit 2027 - TradeStation Securities, Inc.’s and TradeStation Group,
`
`Inc.’s Initial Invalidity Contentions, Civil Action No. 10-C-884
`
`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,
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00179
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`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.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`TT Exhibit 2029 – Volume 11-A Trial Transcript of Proceedings, Civil Action
`
`No. 1:04-cv-05312
`
`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, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00179
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Petitioners object to the document as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`TT Exhibit 2030 – Jury Verdict Form, Civil Action No. 1:04-cv-05312
`
`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, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`view of the prior art.
`
`Petitioners object to this document under FRE 403 because the prejudicial
`
`value far outweighs any probative value.
`
`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.
`
`TT Exhibit 2031 – Jury Instruction Form, Civil Action No. 1:04-cv-05312
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00179
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because the document is never cited in the Patent Owner Preliminary Response and
`
`is therefore not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding, such as
`
`patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims,
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`Petitioners object to this document under FRE 403 because the prejudicial
`
`value far outweighs any probative value.
`
`Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2031 because it is not an original document
`
`under FRE 1002, an authentic duplicate under FRE 1003, nor a document that falls
`
`under any exceptions to the original-document requirement, including those of
`
`FRE 1004. The first page of the Exhibit appears to have handwriting and markings
`
`in the upper right hand corner that suggest it is not an original nor an authentic
`
`copy of the original.
`
`TT Exhibit 2032 – Notification of Docket Entry, Civil Action No. 1:04-cv-
`
`05312
`
`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,
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, written description of the invention,
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00179
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, indefiniteness of the claims,
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`the prior art.
`
`Petitioners object to this document under FRE 403 because the prejudicial
`
`value far outweighs any probative value.
`
`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 ten business days from the February 24,
`
`2016 Decision to Institute.
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Richard M. Bemben #68658/
`
`
`Robert E. Sokohl, Reg. No. 36,013
`Lori A. Gordon, Reg. No. 50,633
`Jonathan M. Strang, Reg. No. 61,724
`Richard M. Bemben, Reg. No. 68,658
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: 3/9/2016
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on March 9, 2016, the attached
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b)(1) were served electronically via e-mail upon the following counsel for
`
`Patent Owner, TT:
`
`Erika H. Arner, Reg. No. 57,540
`Joshua L. Goldberg, Reg. No. 59,369
`Kevin D. Rodkey, Reg. No. 65,506
`Rachel L. Emsley, Reg. No. 63,558
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`kevin.rodkey@finnegan.com
`rachel.emsley@finnegan.com
`
`Steven F. Borsand
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`tt-patent-cbm@tradingtechnologies.com
`
`
`
`
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Richard M. Bemben #68658/
`
`
`Richard M. Bemben, Reg. No. 68,658
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`
`
`Date: 3/9/2016
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
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
