`
`Paper No. _____
`Filed: October 11, 2017
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIAL
`INFORMATION UNDER SEAL PENDING DISPOSITION OF APPEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Case CBM2015-00179
`Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`Statement of Relief Requested
`Pursuant to this Board’s authorization on October 11, 2017, Trading
`
`Technologies International, Inc. (“TT” or “Patent Owner”), respectfully requests
`
`that all sealed documents in CBM2015-00179 be preserved in non-public form
`
`pending disposition of any appeals. Moreover, within 10 days of the disposition of
`
`all appeals in this matter, Patent Owner respectfully requests that all confidential
`
`information filed by Patent Owner be expunged from the record pursuant to Rule
`
`42.56 and not be made public.
`
`Patent Owner has conferred with Petitioner on both requests and Petitioner
`
`does not oppose.
`
`II. Reasons Why Requested Relief Should Be Granted
`A. The Record Should be Preserved Pending Appeal So the
`Federal Circuit Has Full Access to the Record
`The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Federal Circuit Rules
`
`require that the record be retained by the Board pending appeal. Specifically,
`
`Federal Circuit Rule 17(a) states that “[t]he agency must retain the record.”
`
`Federal Circuit Rule 17(d), titled “Access of Parties and Counsel to Original
`
`Record” also requires that the parties and their counsel have access to both the
`
`sealed and unsealed portions of the record “[w]hen a petition for review or notice
`
`of appeal is filed.” Patent Owner’s Notice of Appeal was filed June 29, 2017.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`If the record is not preserved in its entirety, including any sealed portions,
`
`Case CBM2015-00179
`Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`
`
`and an appeal is taken, the Federal Circuit will not be able to fully consider the
`
`issues, which would cause prejudice to Patent Owner and violate the appellate
`
`rules. Moreover, as the Board did not rely on any of this confidential information
`
`in its final written decision or decision denying rehearing, such information may
`
`properly be maintained under seal here. (See Paper 142, at 2).
`
`B.
`
`Subsequent to the Disposition of Appeal, Confidential
`Information Should be Expunged
`Additionally, Patent Owner respectfully requests that subsequent to the
`
`dispositions of all appeals, all sealed confidential information filed on the CBM
`
`docket be expunged for the reasons set forth below.
`
`1.
`
`The Board Found Good Cause to Seal the
`Confidential Information
`In connection with its Motion for Additional Discovery and Motion to
`
`Submit Supplemental Information and Briefing, TT filed Motions to Seal. (Papers
`
`68, 103, 105). These motions covered certain documents and exhibits containing
`
`or referring to confidential business information. (Papers 69, 101, 106 and
`
`Exhibits 2143-51, 2154, and 2156-58).
`
`The Board granted the Motion to Seal with respect to the Motion for
`
`Additional Discovery (Paper 142), and dismissed the other two Motions to Seal
`
`after denying and expunging the underlying confidential Motion to Submit
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Supplemental Information and Briefing and Patent Owner’s Reply in support
`
`Case CBM2015-00179
`Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`thereof. (Paper 108). The information covered by the granted Motion to Seal
`
`should be maintained under seal because this Board has already found that there
`
`was good cause to grant the motion to seal. (Paper 142, at 2). Specifically, TT
`
`identified that the sealed papers contain sensitive business information that would
`
`not otherwise be published or made available to the public. As this information
`
`was not relied on in the Final Written Decision here, (see id.), protecting the
`
`confidential material throughout the appeals does not impact the public interest in
`
`obtaining access to these proceedings. Further, any impact to the public interest
`
`has been minimized as non-confidential versions of the papers have already been
`
`filed. (Id. at 2-3).
`
`2.
`
`The Sealed Documents Contain Confidential and
`Sensitive Business Information That was not Relied
`on by the Board in the Final Written Decision
`For the same reasons set forth in Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal, namely that
`
`the sealed information “contain[s] information identified . . . as sensitive, non-
`
`public information that a business would not make public,” (Paper 68, at 2), all the
`
`information filed under seal in this matter should be expunged from the record
`
`within 10 days of the disposition of all appeals. Expunging the sealed information
`
`will avoid the prejudice to parties that would be caused by public disclosure of
`
`their sealed information. The information Patent Owner seeks to have expunged
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`after the disposition of appeals is as follows: Paper 69 and Exhibits 2143-51, 2154,
`
`Case CBM2015-00179
`Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`and 2156-58.
`
`Because Patent Owner has already filed a redacted version of the paper
`
`(Paper 67), expunging confidential materials after appeal addresses the “public
`
`interest in maintaining a complete and understandable file history for public notice
`
`purposes” while protecting the confidential and proprietary information of other
`
`parties. (See 77 FED. REG. 48623). These materials include:
`
`[I]nternal TradeStation documents relating to its products and
`customers,
`the
`deposition
`transcripts
`of Mr. Bartleman
`(TradeStation’s President) and Mr. [] Galik (IB’s head of software
`development) and quotations from those documents and transcripts in
`the confidential version of the Motion for Additional Discovery.
`Patent Owner has been advised by counsel for Petitioners that this
`information has not been published or otherwise been made public.
`(Paper 68, at 4). These materials were “not relied on in the Final Written
`
`Decision.” (Paper 142, at 2).
`
`III. Conclusion
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the entire CBM record be preserved
`
`in its present form pending appeal, including preservation of documents filed under
`
`seal in non-public form.
`
`Within 10 days after disposition of any appeals, Patent Owner requests that
`
`the sealed materials be expunged from the CBM docket.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00179
`Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Jennifer M. Kurcz/
`
`
`
`Jennifer M. Kurcz,
`Back-Up Counsel, Reg. No. 54,481
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`191 North Wacker Drive
`Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60606-1901
`312-416-6200
`jkurcz@bakerlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 11, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on October 11, 2017, a copy of the
`
`foregoing PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIAL
`
`INFORMATION UNDER SEAL PENDING DISPOSITION OF APPEAL
`
`was served via e-mail on the following:
`
`Robert E. Sokohl
`Lori A. Gordon
`Richard M. Bemben
`STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`202-371-2600
`Rsokohl-ptab@skgf.com
`Lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`Rbemben-ptab@skgf.com
`PTAB@skgf.com
`
`John C. Phillips
`FISH & RICHARDSON, PC
`12390 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`phillips@fr.com
`CBM41919-0007CP1@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00179
`Patent No. 7,533,056
`
`
`
`/Jennifer M. Kurcz/
`Jennifer M. Kurcz,
`Back-Up Counsel, Reg. No. 54,481
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`191 North Wacker Drive
`Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60606-1901
`312-416-6200
`jkurcz@bakerlaw.com
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`2
`
`
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
