`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. ____
` Filed: March 25, 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.
`
`Petitioners
`v.
`
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`Case CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`_________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S UNOPPOSED
`MOTION TO STAY REEXAMINATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`As authorized by Paper 31, Patent Owner Trading Technologies
`
`International, Inc. (“TT”) hereby moves to stay ex parte reexamination control
`
`number 90/013578: a reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 (“the ’056
`
`patent).1 Counsel for the Petitioners has been contacted, and Petitioners will not
`
`file an opposition brief because they do not oppose staying the reexamination
`
`proceeding.
`
`The Board has the authority to stay the reexamination pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 325(d), and has stayed reexamination when “[c]onducting the reexamination
`
`concurrently with the instant proceeding. . . would duplicate efforts within the
`
`Office and could potentially result in inconsistencies between the proceedings.”
`
`CBS Interactive Inc., et. al. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, IPR2013-00033,
`
`Order to Stay the Concurrent Reexamination (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2012)
`
`(representative order) (staying reexamination because “Patent Owner could amend
`
`claims in the reexamination which in turn could change the scope of the challenged
`
`claims while the board is conducting its review” and that “patentability [of claims]
`
`would be determined in both the instant proceeding and the reexamination based
`
`on the same grounds”). The reexamination should be stayed because the issues are
`
`duplicative of the issues in this CBM proceeding.
`
`
`1 A response to the Office Action in reexamination control number 90/013578 is
`due on April 28, 2016, the deadline having been extended by one month.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`The reexamination requester has alleged unpatentability under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-15 of the ’056 patent in view of the same art at issue
`
`in this CBM proceeding: TSE, Togher, and Schott. Compare Ex. 2037 at 2 with
`
`Paper 23 at 4. The reexamination appears to be a copy of portions of the prior TD
`
`Ameritrade petition on the ’056 patent (CBM2014-00131). See CBM2014-00131,
`
`Paper 4. In this CBM proceeding, the Board has instituted review of claims 1-15
`
`the ’056 patent in view of the TSE, Togher, Schott, and Cooper. See Paper 23. The
`
`combination in this proceeding is substantially similar to the reexamination, except
`
`for Petitioners’ addition of Cooper over the prior TD Ameritrade arguments, as
`
`disclosing the claimed “default.” See Paper 9 at 38. Thus, the resolution of
`
`patentability in this CBM proceeding will be duplicative of the efforts to resolve
`
`patentability in the reexamination. Accordingly, continuing the reexamination
`
`during the pendency of this proceeding will be a wasteful duplication of efforts for
`
`both the Patent Owner and the USPTO.
`
`Moreover, the requester of the reexamination will not suffer any prejudice
`
`because the same alleged prior art will be considered in this proceeding, which
`
`must conclude in a Final Written Decision by February 24, 2017. If the CBM is
`
`terminated, the reexamination could re-start with the benefit of any briefing or
`
`information from this proceeding. See CBS Interactive Inc., et. al., IPR2013-
`
`00033, Order to Stay the Concurrent Reexamination (noting that “[a]ny Board . . .
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`final written decision with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims will
`
`likely simplify the issues in the reexamination.”).
`
`For the reasons stated herein, the reexamination should be stayed.
`
`Dated: March 25, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Rachel L. Emsley/
` Rachel L. Emsley, Back-up Counsel
`Reg. No. 63,558
`
`
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00179
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`
`
`Owner’s Unopposed Motion to Stay Reexamination was served on March 25,
`
`2016, via email directed to counsel of record for the Petitioner at the following:
`
`Robert Sokohl
`rsokohl-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Lori Gordon
`lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`
`Jonathan Strang
`jstrang-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Richard M. Bemben
`rbemben-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`PTAB@skgf.com
`
`/Valencia Daniel/
`Valencia Daniel
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett
`& Dunner, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: March 25, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
