`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 1
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS ) Case No.
`LLC, TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., ) CMB2015-00179
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC., )
`TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ) PATENT No.
`IBFX, INC., CQG, INC., and CQGT, ) 7,533,056 B2
`LLC, )
` ) Case No.
` Petitioner, ) CMB2015-00181
` )
` v. )
` ) 7,676,411 B2
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES )
`INTERNATIONAL, INC., ) Case No.
` ) CMB2015-00182
` Patent Owner. )
` ) PATENT No.
`__________________________________) 6,772,132 B1
`
` TELECONFERENCE
`
` May 2, 2016 - 2:00 p.m.
`
` BEFORE:
` MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative
` Patent Judge
` JEREMY PLENZLER, Administrative Patent
` Judge
`
`---------------------------------------------------
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1730 M Street NW, Suite 812
` Washington, DC 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`IBG 1051
`IBG v. TT
`CBM2015-00179
`
`0001
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`Page 2
`
` STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, P.L.L.C.
` Attorneys for Petitioner
` 1100 New York Avenue
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` BY: LORI GORDON, ESQ.
` - and -
` ROBERT SOKOHL, ESQ.
`
` FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT &
` DUNNER, LLP
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` Two Seaport Lane
` Boston, Massachusetts 02210
` BY: RACHEL EMSLEY, ESQ.
`
` STEVEN BORSAND
` Trading Technologies International,
` Inc.
`
`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
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0002
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`Page 3
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Good afternoon.
` This is Judge Petravick, with me on
` the phone is Judge Plenzler.
` We are here for conference call for
` CMB 2015-00179, 181 and 182.
` Could I know who's on the line from
` Petitioner.
` MS. GORDON: Yes, Your Honor.
` This is Lori Gordon for Petitioner,
` and I'll be arguing on behalf of
` Petitioners today.
` Also with me is Rob Sokohl from
` Sterne, Kessler.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you.
` From the Patent Owner?
` MS. EMSLEY: Good afternoon, Your
` Honor.
` This is Rachel Emsley for patent
` owners, and Steve Borsand is also in the
` room with me.
`
`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
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0003
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right.
` Is anybody else on the line?
` MS. GORDON: Your Honor, we have
` a court reporter on the line.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Who arranged
` for the court reporter?
` MS. GORDON: Petitioners did.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you, and
` you'll file a transcript afterward?
` MS. GORDON: Yes.
` Would you like that in the 3,000
` series?
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Sure.
` MS. GORDON: Okay, thank you.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And you have
` enough numbers, you can use one of
` yours, too.
` MS. GORDON: Yeah, okay, I think
` we have plenty of numbers.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right, so
` we received an e-mail from Petitioner
` regarding a dispute as to whether the 1
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0004
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` -- the deposition in the 179 case will
` occur tomorrow and the deposition for
` the 181 and the 182 will occur on
` Thursday.
` This is a dispute about whether on
` May 3rd the topics will be limited to the
` 179 case.
` Petitioner, is that correct?
` MS. GORDON: Yes, Your Honor, the
` first issue is whether based on the
` parties' agreement the first deposition
` will be limited to the 179 case and the
` second deposition to the 181 and 182
` case, and then depending on the
` resolution of that issue, there may be a
` follow-on dispute that we could use some
` clarification regarding.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Okay, so let's
` hear from you on the first issue, then
` Patent Owner will have a chance to speak
` on that issue.
` MS. GORDON: Okay, thank you,
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0005
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Your Honor.
` So, I would like to first start by
` going through the facts related to this
` issue.
` On March 29th the Patent Owner
` requested a deposition of our expert,
` Mr. Roman, on two different dates, and we
` provided this e-mail for the Board's
` convenience.
` The first date in the Patent
` Owner's e-mail is intended to cover the
` topics in CMB2015-00179 and the second was
` designated to cover the topics in
` CMB2015-00181 and 182 proceedings.
` It's important to note when you
` look at that first e-mail from the Patent
` Owner with their proposal, the original
` proposal contemplated a minimum of four
` days, a maximum of eight days between
` those two depositions, and that was what
` Patent Owner proposed to Petitioners.
` On April 7th, Petitioner agreed to
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0006
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 7
` split the dates of the deposition between
` the 179 and the 181 and 182 depositions,
` and proposed May 3rd and May 5th for the
` two deposition dates.
` The reason that Petitioners agreed
` to the split was really three-fold.
` First, the patent in the 179 proceeding is
` in a completely different family than the
` 181 and 182 patents.
` Therefore they cover different --
` they have different specifications.
` Second, the grounds for
` patentability in the first proceeding, the
` 179 proceeding are TSE, Togher and Schott
` in combination and Silverman, Gutterman
` and Togher, and those grounds are
` different than the grounds in the 181 and
` 182 proceeding which rely on the
` combination of TSE and Belden, combined
` with Togher, May and Gutterman in various
` combinations.
` Third, it's important to note that
`
`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
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0007
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` each of these patents have different
` claims, so Petitioners felt that a single
` day in between depositions permits the
` witness to handle the different
` specifications, prior art, claims in
` issue, without increasing the expense of
` multiple trips for the expert to D.C.
` So we agreed to the Patent Owner's
` proposal, sent an e-mail on April 11th
` which we provided to the Board, Patent
` Owner clearly agreed to May 3 and May 5th
` for the dates, and our expert, Mr. Roman,
` made his travel arrangements and we made
` our arrangements according to this
` agreement to prepare him.
` Now, later Patent Owner
` unilaterally decided to change the agreed
` upon scope of deposition to consolidate
` the three depositions into a single
` deposition.
` When we realized what the Patent
` Owner had done, we contacted them to
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0008
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 9
` correct the deposition notice, and counsel
` stated in an e-mail that they noticed the
` depositions based on our desire to take a
` single deposition spanning the three
` proceedings.
` In other words, Patent Owner
` admitted they unilaterally changed the
` agreement, did not ask Petitioners whether
` they agreed to this change, then they
` tried to back door it into a notice that
` they filed over a week after the parties'
` initial agreement, during a time when
` Petitioners were dealing with various
` other e-mails and challenges that the
` Patent Owner raised, as the Board knows
` from the various e-mails you received
` during that time period.
` Your Honor, this is not how the
` proceedings are supposed to be run.
` When parties make an agreement, we
` expect the other side to abide by that
` agreement.
`
`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
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0009
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Therefore for the first point
` Petitioners asked the Board to sua sponte
` change the notice of deposition to reflect
` the actual agreement of the parties to
` depose Mr. Roman on May 3rd for CMB 179
` and on May 5th for the combined 181 and
` 182 proceedings, or alternatively, to
` compel the Patent Owner to file a
` corrected notice of deposition reflecting
` that agreement.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK:: Would you tell
` me in the 179 case what paper the notice
` is?
` MS. GORDON: Let me see.
` It might take me a minute, but I
` will get that for you, Your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you.
` While that is occurring, Patent
` Owner, we will hear from you on this topic
` right now.
` MS. EMSLEY: Sure, Your Honor,
` thank you very much.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0010
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` This is Rachel Emsley again.
` Petitioner's allegation that we
` have unilaterally changed an agreement
` misrepresents the facts.
` We apparently didn't have a meeting
` of the minds about the format of the
` deposition, and there was no grand
` discussion about the format of the
` depositions, and in the past, in the TD
` Ameritrade proceeding, we had always
` combined the depositions into one for the
` sake of efficiency, and when possible, we
` have always done it that way.
` In those proceedings there was the
` same expert, nearly the same declarations,
` the same patents, the same counsel and we
` deposed Mr. Roman once, as we did with the
` other witnesses, and those five patents
` actually included the three that are in
` dispute now, and it was never a problem to
` do them as one.
` When we originally proposed a split
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0011
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` we did so because at the time back on
` March 29th when we made our initial
` request for witness availability the
` schedule in these proceedings wasn't
` aligned.
` So, we had a Patent Owner response
` due on May 5th, and then two more due on
` May 13th, so what we had proposed was some
` dates at the end of April for one
` deposition and dates in early May for the
` following week for the response that was
` due a week later.
` That's not what we normally would
` have done, but we were in a different
` circumstance at that point.
` When they proposed new dates, one
` of the dates was actually outside the
` discovery period for the 179 proceeding,
` and we began the conversation of having an
` extension in these cases.
` And we said that we couldn't agree
` to all of the -- to the dates of May 3rd
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0012
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 13
` and 5th without an extension in all of the
` cases.
` At that point we started
` negotiating the extensions among the
` parties.
` We filed the stipulation and then
` the dates became aligned to have all three
` Patent Owner responses due on May 27th, so
` we no longer had this situation with the
` staggered dates.
` That same day, on April 20th, which
` is about 13 days from the beginning of
` what would be the start of this deposition
` tomorrow, we filed the notices and that
` reflected the intent which went with the
` past course of dealings with the parties
` to take one deposition spanning the two
` days that the witness was available.
` Now, last week we were trying to
` make our travel arrangements and realized
` that we had a day in between the
` depositions, and asked if they would
`
`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
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0013
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 14
` rather do the deposition on Wednesday and
` Thursday rather than have the day in
` between.
` That's when it became apparent that
` there was a misunderstanding between the
` parties.
` And to the extent that for the
` communications that the Board is missing,
` are the ones that occurred after that
` point.
` To the extent that there was any
` misunderstanding of our intent to take a
` single deposition, we tried to accommodate
` any possible prejudice to the Petitioners.
` We offered to move the deposition
` by one day so that it would be taken on
` Wednesday and Thursday, and even offered
` to do the deposition on Thursday and
` Friday so that they would have even one
` more day to prepare their witness.
` We explained that we would be very
` clear on the record about which
`
`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
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0014
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 15
` proceedings we were talking about, which
` declarations and patents when something
` didn't pertain to all three patents, and
` we asked what their issue was.
` In response, we only got a response
` that said it's just simply separate
` proceedings.
` We believe that in this case, as we
` have done in the past for all of these
` proceedings, taking one single deposition
` makes sense.
` I know that they mentioned that the
` patent for the 179 proceeding is in a
` different family, but the declaration has
` a lot of overlap, and the prior art as
` applied has a lot of overlap.
` For example in the TSE reference
` the Board is now intimately familiar with,
` is used as a base reference in all of
` these patents.
` For one of the grounds, as well as
` the witnesses' background information, his
`
`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
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0015
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 16
` take on the ordinary skill in the art and
` the priority date of these patents may be
` about a year apart.
` So his understanding of what was
` going on in the industry at the time of
` the invention is relevant to all of the
` cases.
` So, because of the significant
` overlap and the issues, it makes sense to
` do this deposition all as one.
` And from where we sit, we feel very
` prejudiced by having the deposition
` separated, whereas it doesn't seem like
` there is any prejudice to the Petitioners
` in that regard, especially given the
` combinations that we were willing to make.
` And that was -- we are talking
` about a discussion that happened last
` week, so to the extent there was any
` misunderstanding, there was time to come
` to agreement on how to make this work for
` all of the parties.
`
`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
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0016
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` We are trying to finish the
` deposition in as little time as possible,
` and with this overlap in the issues, you
` can see that there is a scenario created
` here if we separate the depositions where
` it's very unclear as to how we are
` supposed to take the witness' testimony
` when they have a day in between that they
` have now said they are going to prepare
` their witness during that day.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Isn't there a
` rule that precludes the Petitioner from
` preparing a witness separately for a
` separate proceeding, as opposed to
` speaking to them during the same
` deposition?
` MS. EMSLEY: There isn't a rule,
` per se, Your Honor, but it seems like
` this is set up in a way that are we
` supposed to reask the questions about
` TSE and its application to very similar
` claim terms and how he's reading the TSE
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0017
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 18
` reference, or do we have to ask that on
` both days, and then they have a chance
` to prepare the witness and do what they
` may, and that circumvents the Board's
` rule you are not supposed to talk to a
` witness during the deposition, and
` effectively where he's --
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: What rule
` precludes talking to a witness in
` between separate proceedings?
` MS. EMSLEY: There isn't a rule
` on that, per se, Your Honor, but we feel
` that the overlap, that's the effect of
` it in these proceedings.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right.
` Petitioner?
` MS. GORDON: Your Honor, I would
` like to -- thank you, Your Honor, yes, I
` would like to address a couple of
` points.
` First, I believe counsel mentioned
` prior practice by the parties, and that's
`
`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
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0018
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` completely misleading.
` They are referring to an original
` set of CMB petitions filed by TD
` Ameritrade, who is not a party to this
` proceeding, so anything that related to an
` agreement with TD Ameritrade just is
` irrelevant for the Petitioners in this
` case.
` The second thing, counsel mentioned
` e-mails related to the scheduling change,
` but we didn't see in any of those e-mails
` was any indication that Patent Owner was
` changing their position and consolidating
` these depositions into one to be spanning
` across two days, and that's what we did
` not see.
` The fact that TSE may span across
` these two proceedings again is irrelevant,
` because it's used in different
` combinations, so we are dealing with two
` separate grounds of unpatentability, the
` first involving TSE, Togher and Schott in
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0019
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` combination, the second involving to
` Belden and various combinations with
` Togher, May and Gutterman.
` So I think they are misrepresenting
` the significance in their overlap.
` And a final point I would like to
` make, they refer to these prior
` proceedings with TD Ameritrade.
` I would note that in that
` proceeding they noticed the deposition for
` Mr. Roman for two days for four
` proceedings, so we spent two plus days
` preparing him for two days of deposition
` and Patent Owner spent less than one hour
` total deposing Mr. Roman.
` That is gamesmanship, it was
` inconvenient, increased the expense for
` Mr. Roman.
` So in this proceeding we would ask
` that they be held to their original
` agreement to split the depositions in two,
` they have brought in their litigation team
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0020
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` into these proceedings and the last
` deposition of our expert, Mr. Roland
` lasted 7 full days.
` So our witnesses, we are entitled
` to let our witness rest between
` depositions and to prepare him for the
` next day of deposition in two different
` proceedings so he doesn't confuse and mix
` up the issues, which is entirely possible
` when you are dealing with so many
` different specifications, claims and
` grounds of unpatentability.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right, I
` have one question for each of the
` parties.
` You both can agree on having the
` 181 and the 182 depositions consolidated,
` is that correct?
` MS. GORDON: That is correct,
` Your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Ms. Emsley?
` MS. EMSLEY: That is correct.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0021
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 22
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right, the
` panel has discussed this issue, and
` absent an agreement between the parties,
` which we don't see there is an agreement
` between the parties, our rules provide
` for a deposition in each proceeding for
` the witness.
` So, we don't see any reason, absent
` an agreement between the parties, to
` consolidate the 179 deposition into the
` 181 and 182 depositions or to go away from
` our rule to do that.
` So, in light of that, it seems like
` the 179 deposition should continue to
` proceed on May 3rd, and the 181 and 182
` consolidated depositions should continue
` to proceed on May 5th.
` They will be separate.
` MS. EMSLEY: Your Honor, this is
` Patent Owner, and we have noted that
` here.
` If that is the way that we are
`
`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
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0022
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 23
` going to proceed for Tuesday and Thursday,
` we would like to do the 181 and the 182
` first, if it has to be on those days
` because of the preparation day in between,
` or alternatively because the Board gives
` the guidance that -- I don't know what the
` witness' availability is, but they have
` mentioned travel schedule, but we know
` he's here through Thursday, maybe this is
` something that can be done on Wednesday
` and Thursday so that there is not --
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Well, it seems
` that you put in there that it was going
` to be May 3rd and May 5th.
` If you didn't specify which
` proceeding it was going on which day, but
` you did seem to come to an agreement as to
` May 3rd and May 5th.
` MS. EMSLEY: That was when the
` understanding that it would be one
` deposition.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Petitioner, do
`
`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
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0023
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` you agree to have the 181 and 182
` tomorrow?
` MS. GORDON: No, Your Honor,
` because from the beginning there is an
` indication by Patent Owner that they
` wanted the 179 first, and that's what we
` prepared our witness today for.
` So it would be entirely prejudicial
` for Petitioners at 3:00 the day before a
` deposition to switch topics.
` So, Patent Owner is prepared for
` both depositions, as they have indicated,
` so we would like to proceed with 179
` tomorrow as the parties agreed and as we
` prepared our witness, and then 181 and 182
` on Thursday.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right, as
` we have said, that is how this will
` proceed.
` All right, next issue.
` Ms. Gordon, do you have the next
` issue?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0024
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 25
` MS. GORDON: Yes, Your Honor, we
` would just like clarification from the
` Board that we will be able to speak to
` our witness between the depositions in
` order to prepare him for the 181 and 182
` proceeding.
` As the Board noted, and counsel
` acknowledged, there is no rule that
` permits a party from talking with and
` preparing a witness after a first
` deposition has closed and the next
` deposition has started.
` So we would just like clarification
` from the Board that we are, in fact,
` permitted to do that, and also an
` instruction to the Patent Owner to not
` play any games to try and hold the 179
` deposition open to prevent us from
` preparing our witness on Wednesday.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Ms. Emsley?
` MS. EMSLEY: Yes, Your Honor,
` it's starting to feel like they -- that
`
`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
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0025
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 26
` Petitioners are using one deposition to
` get a preview of our questions for the
` next deposition, which is for us, we
` would like to reverse the order.
` We understand that that's not the
` order that we believe they have prepared
` their witness for, but to the extent that
` they feel that he would be confused, I
` still think that it would make sense to
` not be able to talk to the witness in
` between, and if that's offensive to the
` preparation time, to move the deposition
` to Wednesday and Thursday.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: We have already
` decided the issue about moving it to
` Wednesday and Thursday.
` We don't find --
` MS. EMSLEY: We are fine to do it
` Tuesday and Thursday, but if we have to
` do in the 179 and then the 182 and 181,
` then what we are saying is we don't want
` them talking to their witness in between
`
`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
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0026
`
`
`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` and using the first day as a test run.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: But you know of
` no rule of ours that precludes that from
` happening?
` MS. EMSLEY: Right, I mean from
` our perspective, we did not reach an
` agreement about the order of these, I
` know that's how they viewed that initial
` correspondence, but there is a lot of
` circumstances in between.
` As I pointed out earlier, that was
` not our intent and that was not our
` agreement, and we noticed the deposition
` clea