`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 CBM2015-00181
`Patent No. 7,676,411
`____________________
`
`
`
`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
`CBM2015-00181
`
`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 2002 – Attachment A to Letter to Director Lee
`
`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 it is 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).
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`TT Exhibit 2003 – Attachment B to Letter to Director Lee
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`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 it is 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 2004 – Email to Petitioner regarding Discovery, October 19, 2015
`
`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 it is not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding, such as
`
`patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims,
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`1003, nor a document that falls under any exceptions to the original-document
`
`requirement, including those of FRE 1004.
`
`TT Exhibit 2007 – 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.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`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
`
`1003, nor a document that falls under any exceptions to the original-document
`
`requirement, including those of FRE 1004.
`
`TT Exhibit 2008 - 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.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`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 – 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,
`
`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 2010 - UW HCI Degree Option
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`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 2011 - 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.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`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 – RPI Web Page Print out, M.S. in HCI
`
`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.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`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 2013 - 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
`
`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 2014- Georgia Tech Masters in Human-Computer Interaction
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`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 2015 - 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.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`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 2016 - Carnegie-Mellon Masters of 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.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`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 2018 – Crossing the Finish Line on Patent Reform: What Can and
`
`Should Be Done, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property,
`
`Competition, and the Internet of the Committee on the Judiciary House of
`
`Representatives (Feb. 11, 2011).
`
`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 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.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`TT Exhibit 2019 – Markup of H.R. 1249, The America Invents Act, House of
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`Representatives Committee on the Judiciary (Apr. 14, 2011).
`
`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 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 2021 – 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,
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`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 2022 –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 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.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`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 2024 – 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 2025 –Defendants’ Case Management Statement for May 5, 2011,
`
`Civil Action No. 10-C-715
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`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 2026 –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
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`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 – 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 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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`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 2028 –TradeStation Defendants’ Joinder In and Motion for Stay,
`
`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 2029 –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
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`
`claims, anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`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).
`
`TT Exhibit 2030 –Response of Certain Defendants to Trading Technologies’
`
`“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).
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`
`TT Exhibit 2031 - TradeStation Securities, Inc.’s and TradeStation Group,
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`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 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 2033 – 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 in this proceeding, such as
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`
`patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims,
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`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 2034 – 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
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`TT Exhibit 2035 – Jury Instruction 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 the document is never cited in the Patent Owner Preliminary Response and
`
`is therefore not relevant to any issue 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 2035 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 2036 – Notification of Docket Entry, Civil Action No. 1:04-cv-
`
`05312
`
`
`
`- 22 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`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, written description of the invention,
`
`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.
`
`TT Exhibit 2037 – USPTO 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter
`
`Eligibility
`
`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 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,
`
`
`
`- 23 -
`
`
`
`
`anticipation of the claims by the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TTI’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`the prior art.
`
`TT Exhibit 2038 – July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples
`
`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 F